Peterborough North

[phil.c]

It's difficult to tell in the pictures as it could have been Phosphor bronze which doesn't need painting and gets darker by age, the rails in Pen-Y-Bryn are all unpainted, parts of the ballast however is.

[great northern]

Those of you who also frequent Wright Writes will be aware that I am gradually posting rather a lot of photos of LB which I took last week. Tony has kindly said I can put some on here as well, so here goes. This must have been taken around 1956, which is when New England briefly provided the power for the Down Scotsman.  The Wolf has the job on this day.

 

 

 

A similar shot has appeared on WW, and on that one I managed to get a pole sticking out of the loco's chimney. We moved the train on a little and avoided that problem, but succeeded in getting a tree growing there instead.

[great northern]

The focus is on Prince of Wales again tonight, first from distance,

 

 

 

and then from right up close.

 

 

[jukebox]

Something about the rather nice lighting on those last two shots, Gilbert - perhaps it's the presence of shadows? - but for my eyes anyway, it makes the scene lift substantially compared to days with more subdued/diffused light.

 

Cheers

 

Scott

[great northern]

Something unexpected just cropped up, so here's one image for now. It does feature a D16, so is worth two of anything else.

 

 

[great northern]

10 hours ago, jukebox said:

Something about the rather nice lighting on those last two shots, Gilbert - perhaps it's the presence of shadows? - but for my eyes anyway, it makes the scene lift substantially compared to days with more subdued/diffused light.

 

Cheers

 

Scott

I couldn't agree more Scott. On a sunny day I get far more to work with. The problem is that there aren't many of those this time of year. I'll always look for atmosphere, rather than record shots, or getting things technically correct, so the extra light is a big boost when I get it.

[Tony Wright]

On 28/01/2020 at 15:27, great northern said:

Those of you who also frequent Wright Writes will be aware that I am gradually posting rather a lot of photos of LB which I took last week. Tony has kindly said I can put some on here as well, so here goes. This must have been taken around 1956, which is when New England briefly provided the power for the Down Scotsman.  The Wolf has the job on this day.

 

 

 

A similar shot has appeared on WW, and on that one I managed to get a pole sticking out of the loco's chimney. We moved the train on a little and avoided that problem, but succeeded in getting a tree growing there instead.

You don't need my permission to post pictures of yours on your thread, Gilbert.

 

I thought it was 1958 when New England had the Down 'Scotsman. I'll have to look it up again.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[great northern]

Another picture, as you were short changed this morning. Dante emerging from under the roof with that York parcels.

 

 

[great northern]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

You don't need my permission to post pictures of yours on your thread, Gilbert.

 

I thought it was 1958 when New England had the Down 'Scotsman. I'll have to look it up again.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

1956 according to Eric Neve in East Coast from Kings Cross, Tony.

[phil.c]

Edited January 29, 2020 by phil.c

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, great northern said:

1956 according to Eric Neve in East Coast from Kings Cross, Tony.

Thanks Gilbert,

 

There's a picture on page 26 of David Percival's King's Cross Lineside 1958-1984 showing 60502 on the Down 'Scotsman at Hitchin, in 1959. Normally, it would have been a 52A job.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, phil.c said:

That's a very interesting picture, and really remarkable, but I'm puzzled as to its purpose....

 

It's clearly on Gilbert's Peterborough North, but the Photoshopped-in background isn't appropriate. There is no rising land to the south on the real thing, the Cathedral should be dominant, and there appear to be 'mysterious' extra signals - one above the B17, and another between the water column and the Austerity. 

 

As I've mentioned before, I'm not really a fan of false backgrounds, false weathering and false smoke, no matter how clever one has to be to be able to do it (far too clever for me). I much prefer pictures which tell me it's a model railway, warts and all.

 

The above said, what you put on Gilbert's thread is entirely up to you, and, as I say, it is interesting. It's just that Gilbert and I have been comparing photographic methods on Little Bytham, and I'm sure there is no 'right way'.

 

With the notion of showing model railways as they are, I've had a further go at replicating another of Gilbert's images which appeared on Wright Writes.......

 

 

Simple physics (the different sizes of the cameras) mean it's impossible to replicate exactly the same viewpoint, but it's near enough. Nikon Df, 35mm lens, F.29, 3 secs, 100 ASA, pulses of fill-in flash and a slight crop. 

 

I also tried a slightly tighter perspective......

 

 

Nikon Df, 60mm Micro lens, F32, 4secs, 100 ASA, pulses of fill-in flash and a tighter crop. 

 

I know I've manipulated the backgrounds on both these shots (cloned from my backscene colours), but the modelling is as it is - warts and all.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2020 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[7APT7]

1 hour ago, phil.c said:

 

Hi phil.c

 

Wow, that's an excellent picture, those clouds suit the atmosphere of the hole picture...

 

Nice One...

 

Regards

Jamie

 

[phil.c]

Model railways are I guess all about escapism, none are real, but we make them to look real because most of use were there at the time of steam etc.

Gilbert's layout is one of the best on the forum, his pictures are still intact, warts and all, so, is there anything wrong when adding a picture with steam etc to show how it would look if it was real now and again ?

 

The reason the background is as it is, is because there are very few photographs of the area in the1930's that are good enough or at the right angle to include, I have had this discussion with Gilbert, and by the way, there are no extra signals added!

 

As for adding false backscene, I guess most modellers are at fault here then ?

 

I did asks the question regarding me adding some Photoshoped pictures now and again and no one objected, it's just a bit of fun, we are allowed fun on this forum....I hope  But if someone does object then there will be no more.

 

Phil

Edited January 29, 2020 by phil.c

[bigwordsmith]

8 minutes ago, phil.c said:

Model railways are I guess all about escapism, none are real, but we make them to look real because most of use were there at the time of steam etc.

Gilbert's layout is one of the best on the forum, his pictures are still intact, warts and all, so, is there anything wrong when adding a picture with steam etc to show how it would look if it was real now and again ?

 

The reason the background is as it is, is because there are very few photographs of the area in the1950’s that are good enough or at the right angle to include, I have had this discussion with Gilbert, and by the way, there are no extra signals added!

 

As for adding false backscene, I guess most modellers are at fault here then ?

 

I did asks the question regarding me adding some Photoshoped pictures now and again and no one objected, it's just a bit of fun, we are allowed fun on this forum....I hope  But if someone does object then there will be no more.

 

Phil

 

well I got one enjoy them!

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, phil.c said:

Model railways are I guess all about escapism, none are real, but we make them to look real because most of use were there at the time of steam etc.

Gilbert's layout is one of the best on the forum, his pictures are still intact, warts and all, so, is there anything wrong when adding a picture with steam etc to show how it would look if it was real now and again ?

 

The reason the background is as it is, is because there are very few photographs of the area in the1930's that are good enough or at the right angle to include, I have had this discussion with Gilbert, and by the way, there are no extra signals added!

 

As for adding false backscene, I guess most modellers are at fault here then ?

 

I did asks the question regarding me adding some Photoshoped pictures now and again and no one objected, it's just a bit of fun, we are allowed fun on this forum....I hope  But if someone does object then there will be no more.

 

Phil

I personally don't object at all, Phil,

 

Anyway, it's really none of my business what you do to Gilbert's pictures, though I'm still puzzled as to the origins of those 'extra signals'.

 

It is a very-effective shot, and lots of fun, so, please, carry on.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[great northern]

Ladas with the 1.20 Leeds is next, though how it got the double chimney many months too early I really don't know. That will be remedied when Tim gets his hands on it, and the paint job will be much improved too.

 

 

 

This was a low light day, when this end of the layout is the sensible place to take photos. When was I ever sensible though?  Off I went to catch the A3 resting at the platform, with predictable results.

 

 

 

Black and white goes some way towards saving it. The poles are nice and sharp though, which is strange, as they usually aren't.

[phil.c]

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I personally don't object at all, Phil,

 

Anyway, it's really none of my business what you do to Gilbert's pictures, though I'm still puzzled as to the origins of those 'extra signals'.

 

It is a very-effective shot, and lots of fun, so, please, carry on.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

The backscene was taken from two Peterborough station pictures, not the same direction but as I mentioned, good pictures are few and far between, especially with the correct angle, but they were the best available to me without an extensive search They are also out of focus so although not dead accurate, acceptable...I think There are no extra signals in these pictures and I certainly haven't added any as I'm sure the layout is quite accurate as it is.

 

There have been quite a few "Likes" to the picture, including one from Gilbert so I assumed all is well with the posting, in fact I think I've posted three or so, anyway, it's as I said, just a bit of fun and brings a sort of reality to what is itself a great layout.

[Tony Wright]

12 minutes ago, phil.c said:

The backscene was taken from two Peterborough station pictures, not the same direction but as I mentioned, good pictures are few and far between, especially with the correct angle, but they were the best available to me without an extensive search They are also out of focus so although not dead accurate, acceptable...I think There are no extra signals in these pictures and I certainly haven't added any as I'm sure the layout is quite accurate as it is.

 

There have been quite a few "Likes" to the picture, including one from Gilbert so I assumed all is well with the posting, in fact I think I've posted three or so, anyway, it's as I said, just a bit of fun and brings a sort of reality to what is itself a great layout.

Thanks Phil,

 

I'm sure many like what you've done, and I'm not going to be saying anything against that. I have no right.

 

Without labouring a point (at least to me,) there appears to be a home and distant signal (both arms in the 'off') position, at right angles to the roads, above the B17. I assume they were on the original real shots? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[phil.c]

Thanks Tony, yes, all signals in my shot are from the original, check it out, Page 915.

 

Phil

Edited January 30, 2020 by phil.c

[great northern]

1 hour ago, phil.c said:

The backscene was taken from two Peterborough station pictures, not the same direction but as I mentioned, good pictures are few and far between, especially with the correct angle, but they were the best available to me without an extensive search They are also out of focus so although not dead accurate, acceptable...I think There are no extra signals in these pictures and I certainly haven't added any as I'm sure the layout is quite accurate as it is.

 

There have been quite a few "Likes" to the picture, including one from Gilbert so I assumed all is well with the posting, in fact I think I've posted three or so, anyway, it's as I said, just a bit of fun and brings a sort of reality to what is itself a great layout.

We all have different ways of approaching things, including photography. Tony and I have, quite literally, different "takes" on the same subject, as can be seen on his thread recently. I admire your ability to do things with images that I couldn't even begin to comprehend, and it's good to see something different now and then.

 

So far as I'm concerned, anyone is welcome here, so long as there is mutual respect. Over the nearly ten years the thread has been going there have been very few instances where I have had any concern, and long may that continue.

[great northern]

Things are quietening down now, as the dead hour approaches. That means paths through to the Up slow are available, and more coal can be dispatched to Ferme Park. A nearly new 9F sets off with the next consignment.

 

 

 

and passes a B1 waiting to go to Grimsby.

 

 

 

[FarrMan]

14 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

That's a very interesting picture, and really remarkable, but I'm puzzled as to its purpose....

 

It's clearly on Gilbert's Peterborough North, but the Photoshopped-in background isn't appropriate. There is no rising land to the south on the real thing, the Cathedral should be dominant, and there appear to be 'mysterious' extra signals - one above the B17, and another between the water column and the Austerity. 

 

As I've mentioned before, I'm not really a fan of false backgrounds, false weathering and false smoke, no matter how clever one has to be to be able to do it (far too clever for me). I much prefer pictures which tell me it's a model railway, warts and all.

 

The above said, what you put on Gilbert's thread is entirely up to you, and, as I say, it is interesting. It's just that Gilbert and I have been comparing photographic methods on Little Bytham, and I'm sure there is no 'right way'.

 

With the notion of showing model railways as they are, I've had a further go at replicating another of Gilbert's images which appeared on Wright Writes.......

 

 

Simple physics (the different sizes of the cameras) mean it's impossible to replicate exactly the same viewpoint, but it's near enough. Nikon Df, 35mm lens, F.29, 3 secs, 100 ASA, pulses of fill-in flash and a slight crop. 

 

I also tried a slightly tighter perspective......

 

 

Nikon Df, 60mm Micro lens, F32, 4secs, 100 ASA, pulses of fill-in flash and a tighter crop. 

 

I know I've manipulated the backgrounds on both these shots (cloned from my backscene colours), but the modelling is as it is - warts and all.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

I agree with Tony on this. It looks a nice picture, but nothing like Peterborough, where the biggest hill for miles around is the bridge over the railway (or under the railway on Oundle Road).

 

Lloyd

[great northern]

5 hours ago, FarrMan said:

I agree with Tony on this. It looks a nice picture, but nothing like Peterborough, where the biggest hill for miles around is the bridge over the railway (or under the railway on Oundle Road).

 

Lloyd

Do you remember when Coachmann put a background of Welsh mountains on a couple of my shots, Lloyd? Those were really big hills. Just another bit of fun.

[FarrMan]

47 minutes ago, great northern said:

Do you remember when Coachmann put a background of Welsh mountains on a couple of my shots, Lloyd? Those were really big hills. Just another bit of fun.

Gilbert

 

No I don't remember that, but I can imagine the shock I would have!

 

Lloyd