Wright writes.....

[gr.king]

I know it's been a while but here's some images as an update of life on Little Bytham.

 

 

Although I'd spotted that you'd just been to Bishop Auckland*, contrary to the impression I may convey at times, I don't spend hours every day glued to my computer, scouring every possible page of every model railway website for new entries, so I've only just noticed that you're active on here again Tony - but it's good to see!

Regards, Graeme.

 

* With soap and clean clothing too, let's hope the fashion catches on with some show visitors.......

[micklner]

+ a big brush

[Tony Wright]

Two locos a WEEK?   

 

In response to LNER 4479's incredulity at my being able to build two locos a week, perhaps I should qualify that, for it could be perceived as being slightly disingenuous. 

 

Fordley Park, from Wolverhampton MRC, had been invited to the Warley Show at the end of the '70s/early-'80s. In those days it was held at the Harry Mitchell Centre, and was considered one of the top shows (obviously, it is now THE top show). How Fordley Park became an Eastern Region layout is a complex story, but suffice to say, as originally exhibited, the layout was a bit of a disaster - even after all those years, its appearance at Joseph Leckie School in Walsall still makes me shudder. All that seemed to work were soldering irons, and only three trains - two pulled by my locos and one built by a dear-departed friend, with a scratch-built chassis built by me. It was an almost unmitigated disaster. A kit-built Royal Scot (ostensibly professionally made) wouldn't even pull its own tender and all the others either buzzed, derailed constantly, shorted or went the opposite way to convention when the controller was turned on. My apologies to any exhibition-goers who remember it. 

 

A club EGM was convened and I said my piece, stating in no uncertain terms that it wasn't the layout's fault (the soldering irons weren't actually needed!) but the stock. Now, if you really want to offend fellow modellers, criticise their stock, particularly locomotives. 

 

After some heated discussion (in which it was suggested we actually baled out of the show so as not to let ourselves down or, particularly, let the host club down), I said that all my locos and stock would be available if needed, but it was all ER-based prototypes. Previously, I'd been a bit reluctant to put stock on club layouts after a clot asked to see an A2/2 I'd just scratch-built, promptly picking it up by the valve gear! I don't think I repeated a profane phrase for nearly 30 seconds! Do any other members of clubs have similar experiences?

 

So, my bluff was called, and, with nearly four months to go, Fordley Park was to appear as an ER layout at Harry Mitchell. Previously, political correctness and democracy meant that it was based 'somewhere in England' - anywhere, in fact. But the guys, bless 'em, pulled out the stops. One bloke built the appropriate Prototype Models' kits for the station and signal box and I donated my previously-built model from the same source of Little Bytham goods shed (how the wheel turns!). Two guys, sadly now departed, were building exquisite BR freight stock and another bloke and I had made enough passenger trains from kits or modified proprietary. But, allowing for enough replacements in case of failure, we needed at least 30 locos. Now set (with much in the way of modeller's licence) 'somewhere in the West Riding', the layout also allowed for Midland Region and BR Standards to be used. Two guys had two such locos each, built from kits, and these worked well (they came out of the woodwork at the EGM), but we were still about a dozen-fifteen short of appropriate loco types, especially if ringing the changes was contemplated.

 

I mentioned being disingenuous, and, though I was teaching full-time, part of my loco building build-up to the show coincided with the last two weeks of the summer holiday. Part of my department at the school included a fully-equipped metal workshop, so I virtually locked myself away for days on end with a stack of drawings and raw materials, and a list of locos to make. Jamieson kits provided the likes of an A2/1 (hand-cut kit) B1s, J39s and V2s, so those could be erected quite quickly. However, stuff like the other Thompson Pacifics, a K1, O4/8 and O1 had to be scratch-built or kit-bashed (my A1s were stretched Wills' A2s on scratch-built chassis). Mike Edge had built me an A2/2 and A2/3 from scratch some three/four years before (locos only), though I was never entirely happy with them - that's not a criticism of his work, by the way, it's just that we were both on learning curves at that time, and today he's one of the top loco builders in the country. Now substantially rebuilt, they can both be seen running on Great Northern's Peterborough North as respectively WOLF OF BADENOCH (original identity) and DANTE (renamed and renumbered from WATLING STREET). Other kits from the likes of Wills, K's, Nu-Cast, Cornard/McGowan and Craftsman gave me quick routes to other types as well. RTR locos were rejected as being unsuitable (how times change), apart from some Hornby-Dublo A4 bodies running on scratch-built chassis, hauling Wills' tenders. Cast-metal chassis were dumped at source and replaced with scratch-built alternatives or frames/bogies from Jamieson. Wheels were all Romfords and the drives 5-pole XO4 derivatives with Romford gears. Cylinders, motion and valve gear, where necessary, were from Jamieson or Nu-Cast. Boiler fittings and things like sandbox fillers and axleboxes came from a variety of sources.

 

Gadgets like an accurate horizontal milling machine, Boxford lathe, large pillar drill and Gabro bending machine allowed the almost mass-production of body bits and chassis (four A4 sets of frames along with their rods could be made in one go - sweat eight strips of curtain rail thickness brass together, do the same with the rods (strips of code 100 bullhead rail), mill a true edge, use the rods for marking out the axle spacings, centre drill, one eighth interference drill and ream out, mill the cut-out for the motor, separate and He-Presto there you go. Because the frames were so thick, no bearings were necessary. Jig-assemble using a Jamieson jig, appropriate spacer strip and a 75W iron, drill and tap spacers for bogie/pony screws and Bob's your uncle. 

 

Thus, a kind of mini loco factory was set up. But, nobody expected fully-detailed end products. Niceties which I expect today (indeed, insist upon) were not considered. Thus, my locos had no brakes, no lamp brackets, no beading on the sheet metal ones and no fiddly pipe runs and sandpipes. I painted them, but here's a confession. Though I achieved my 15+ locos in about eight weeks, visitors at the said show might just recall an A5, B1, K1, O1 and V2 running 'in the raw'. I ran out of time before I could paint them.

 

The layout ran perfectly - Bob Daw (if you're still around), Arnie and the Bates family were vindicated, and the rest, as they say, is history. In a way it was 'old-fashioned' modelling as I saw it. I/we were freed from the diktats of what the RTR boys had to offer loco-wise, stuff was 'made' as appropriate and we all had great fun. My locos looked liked those of nobody else (not always a compliment, I know) and stuff like it had never been seen before. Compared to what's seen on RMWeb now, Fordley Park doesn't stack up. Some of my rolling stock of the period makes me wince - modified Hornby-Dublo Pullmans, some Hornby-Dublo SD coaches with just the buffers replaced, and Ratio wooden Thompsons! Needless to say, I have nothing of that now, and apart from some of the 'dinosaur' locos which have appeared on this thread, none of those earlier creations. But, I/we built it ourselves, and no amount of superior-quality modelling (and much of what's seen on this site is fantastic) can take that away. 

As a preparation for my eventual future as a professional loco builder, my loco batch-building of that period was invaluable. They were happy times. Do any RMWebbers remember them, too?  

Edited August 3, 2013 by Tony Wright

[BMacdermott]

Hello Tony

 

Could you tell me what chimney you used for your 4F in posting #239, please? Is it by Alan Gibson?

 

I'm working on my own 4F as result of your photo!

 

I have made the tender closer-coupling to the loco by replacing the existing connection with a shorter one made from plasticard (as I'm not a 'metalworker' like you). The loco still goes round second radius no problem, but looks a lot more 'realistic'. Having fitted a fallplate (which hides the plasticard connector), it just awaits a crew and some weathering (apart from the chimney).

 

Although I'm using the Hornby (China-made) body, driving wheels and tender top, I am still using the original Airfix motor and tender base from an older model (probably from the late 70s) - it is really smooth running and barely audible at freight train speed.

 

Many thanks for sparking the idea.

 

Brian

[queensquare]

I'm thoroughly enjoying this thread despite 'ER 00' being a long way from my own modelling interests. I have always enjoyed reading about homogeneous loco studs that are assembled, to quote Churchill from a completely different context, using the "most convenient hack in the stable" - a combination of scratch, Kit and butchered RTR. A cracking read, please keep them coming.

 

Jerry 

[Mallard60022]

So, my bluff was called, and, with nearly four months to go, Fordley Park was to appear as an ER layout at Harry Mitchell

Nothing like a deadline is there Tony?

 

Many years ago I worked in a Middle School (8 - 12 years) in Surrey and taught (well, encouraged participation in, as that was my style) Craft and Games. The Craft Room was equipped beautifully for woodwork (and light metalwork), as the then top year (now Y7) would have found in their Secondary Schools. Sadly that situation  only lasted a few years before 'the curriculum' was fiddled with and these lovely workshops became 'general studies areas'. More like general mess around dumps where all sorts of things were tried out (that's when I left and did something more sensible instead!!)

Reason for telling you this; well I used that room at weekends, some evenings and during holidays for building baseboards, theatre scenery, stuff for home. Great stuff; lovely tools (looked after by myself), large bench work areas and no disturbance from SWMBO and Co. The scenery was actually for another teacher's Am Dram group so no one questioned the out of hours use.

How I now miss having that facility for woodwork tasks - pah.

Happy times indeed Tony, however not quite in the same league as yourself. I could not scratch build a loco even if I was paid thousands!

Quack

[Barry O]

Tony

 

i remember Fordley Park at the Corn Exchange - happy days!  Still got the guide somewhere.  Since then i have been lucky to bump into some of the rest of the Wolverhampton guys - all of  whom have been great modellers.

 

Question is - does Little Bytham want a blue diesel day - the C & O E8s are still available(!)   .... heads for the door at speed!!

[LNER4479]

In response to LNER 4479's incredulity at my being able to build two locos a week, perhaps I should qualify that, for it could be perceived as being slightly disingenuous. 

....

As a preparation for my eventual future as a professional loco builder, my loco batch-building of that period was invaluable. They were happy times. Do any RMWebbers remember them, too?  

What a great story!

 

Sadly, I do not remember seeing the layout but I can look back to the stock that ran on my Dad's layout in the 1970's. HD Duchesses, A4's, 8F's & 2-6-4T's, Trix Britannia, A3's and an A2. The only Triang member of the stud was an L1, repainted to masquerade as an LMS 2P(!) There were also a couple of Hornby tender drive 'Silver Seal' Black 5's (the ones with only half the valve gear present!).

 

And then I remember the excitement at the arrival of the first kit built loco - A Jubilee, from a Jamieson kit (Dad paid for a professional model builder friend to make it for him). 45573 'Newfoundland' it was, and it ran well. It was the 'star of the show'!

 

By the end of the decade, Mainline (Palitoy) had appeared on the scene and, although we may wince at some of the mechanisms now, surely this was the start of scale models in RTR form? Within a few years, the layout stud was enhanced by numerous Jubilees and Royal Scots and poor old 45573 was soon eclipsed.

 

I've been able to contribute a few offerings of my own to his various layouts over the years. Here is the afore-mentioned DJH Std5, built in my 'record' time of 5 weeks(!) Note the influence of reading Tony's many loco-build articles in BRM over the years (part-built loco placed on drawing reference material!)

 

And yes, subsequent to this build, a decent version of the type is now available in RTR form...(!)

Edited August 5, 2013 by LNER4479

[Tony Wright]

Firstly, in answer to Brian Macdermott's question about the replacement chimney on the 4F in an earlier post, it's from South Eastern Finecast. Dave Ellis does several chimneys for the 4F - Midland-style (the one that's on the current Hornby 4F), squatter one, tall Stanier one, etc. A phone call to 01342 824711 will enable you to order whatever parts you want from the man himself. The one I used was the Stanier chimney, based on a photograph in 'East Midlands Branch Line Album' by Anthony Lambert, showing the loco at Syston Junction, having travelled over the M&GNR/MR to Saxby Junction and beyond. I assume from what Brian says that he's still going to use the original Airfix tender drive, claiming that it runs very well. He must have the tender-drive equivalent of how-many-in-a-hundred Winchester rifles actually shoot straight. My experience of them is that they're universally ghastly - noisy, jerky, and try running them through hand-built pointwork. 

 

I've included a further selection of 4F pictures, derived from a variety of sources, some of which are ex-Airfix, having replacement loco/tender frames. 

 

 

Hornby 4F R3030 01. This is the current Hornby loco-drive 4F in LMS as-built condition. It's a huge improvement on the tender-drive original, though the driving wheels are still a bit coarse. I think it's correct in having a capuchon on the chimney and extended covers for the piston tail rods.

 

 

 

Hornby 4F R3031 01 and 02. Here's the BR version, the one I modified by replacing the chimney, removing the piston tail rod covers, fitting lamp brackets, scale shackle, renumbering and weathering. As intimated, the chimney is wrong - it shouldn't have a capuchon in BR days (I filed off the capuchon, but the chimney still didn't look right). Neither should it have the piston tail rod covers. At the price, these should have been correct, and the omission of lamp brackets is a retrograde step. Compared with a Bachmann 3F, it's quite a bit more expensive and isn't as good a model, so watch out for Bachmann's forthcoming 4F. However, the Barwell 4F will have to run superbly to match the performance of this one. 

 

 

Alan Gibson 4F. This is the one I made and painted for Right Track Parts 1 and 2 and 3 in the Activity Media DVD series. Ignorance allowed the retention of the chimney capuchon (all Alan Gibson's 4F chimneys have it), and removing it wouldn't be easy because it's made of lost-wax brass - tough stuff! Ian Rathbone weathered it slightly.

 

 

4F 43938. I built this one from a SE Finecast kit (it was one of a pair written up in BRM some time ago). It's got the tall Stanier chimney. I painted it and John Houlden dusted over the weathering. The tender has coal rails, catered for in the kit should you wish to model it with this feature. Visible stock in the 4F pictures is almost all RTR-based, tinkered with and weathered. The old Airfix LMS coaches are a bit poor, but, for the moment there are still a few providing some of the M&GNR services. The later Hornby Staniers are much better, and I await Bachmann's forthcoming 'porthole' stock with interest.

 

 

4Fs 43871. This is a Wills 4F (forerunner to SE Finecast), built by Rob Kinsey and sitting on a scratch-built chassis. Rob's provided a K's MR tender for something different. I painted and weathered it, though I can't explain the bend in the footplate. This one has the shorter chimney. Just check with prototype pictures to make sure you get the right one. 

 

 

4Fs 44412 and 44404. Both of these are ex-Airfix tender drive derivatives. I modified 44412, using a replacement SE Finecast set of loco and tender frames, and painted and weathered it. 44604 has a scratch-built chassis and a high-sided Fowler tender from Alan Gibson. This was the earlier work of the late John Horton, he of Scale Seven fame. It's a cherished locomotive for he was a dear friend.  Both locos retain their original chimneys. 44412 has one of the regular three-coach Nottingham-King's Lynn trains on the M&GNR, and 44404 is waiting to take the single track section westwards on the daily Up goods. What appears to be really shoddy trackwork in front of 44404 is, in fact, a wooden walkway, parallel to but raised up above the rails.

 

 

44418 and 44519. Trains pass again at Little Bytham Junction, this time a King's Lynn-Nottingham train waits for the daily Down goods to clear the single track section to Saxby (an unlikely situation, I know, but one just posed for the camera). 44418 is the second of the featured pair of 4Fs I wrote up in BRM. It has a squat chimney, and exhaust steam ejector (indicated by the pipe on the right hand side of the smokebox - left as we look). 44519 is another ex-Airfix body/tender with replacement frames, and this one has a Stanier chimney (I think that's right, but some Midland chimneys were tall and slender, too - as always, check against prototype pictures). How I made replacement chassis for the 4Fs (and a variety of other locos) was featured in this year's BRM Annual). 

 

Secondly, some further locomotives of possible interest.

 

 

Crownline B12/3. If ever a loco deserves to be available RTR, it must be this type. Despite Hornby's recent upgrade of its B12, it's still not a 'scale' model. This one is (at least as 'scale' as a OO one can be, I think). I made it from a Crownline kit for Gilbert Barnatt (Great Northern, of Peterborough North fame), and Ian Rathbone painted and weathered it to perfection. It was written up in 'Model Rail', I think. 

 

Speaking of Peterborough North, progress is certainly spectacular and it's the most popular layout on RMWeb by some margin, with justification. The photography of the layout has come on in leaps and bounds, and I was especially interested in Andy York's more recent images, particularly post #4297. What a stunner, I thought, until I looked at the train, is it to do with the 'stacking' process? I know this has been touched on, and Andy has actually shown me the procedure for getting almost unlimited depth of field by this method - picture after picture of the same subject with the focus altering slightly with each one, the computer programme then stitching them together. But it does, in my opinion, produce anomalies - like a rubber train? Being a Luddite and a product of the age of dinosaurs, all this is bewildering to me. Even though even I have gone digital, I stick with a heavy lump (a Nikon D3) and a 'micro' lens stopping down to almost F45, driving the whole thing by the seat of my pants, producing one picture at a time. Anyone have any thoughts on current model railway photography? I admit (as you can see from these pictures), I don't get an infinite depth of field but my track doesn't end up looking like cooked spaghetti, I don't get trains made of rubber nor buildings looking like they're made of Plasticene. I await a heated response!   

 

 

Magna Models J10. This is wholly out of place on Little Bytham, and it's built from a kit I suggested avoiding. It emerged from its box, blinking into the light to have its picture taken. It might suggest I don't like my children, for this kit was given by me to my elder son, Tom, when he was 15 or 16. He wanted to have a crack at making a kit, so I thought, even if he messed it up, it wasn't that expensive and it could act as a learning curve. I scratch-built the chassis for him, and away he went, soldering iron fired up, lungs ready for permanent boiling flux damage and young fingers ready to be scorched. Despite the kit being a bit 'rough', he succeeded, but it would have been better to have given him something better to cut his teeth on. He certainly didn't mess up, not at all, for here is the result. I did, though. Looking on, and scoffing at his initial timidity with the iron, I plunged in, cranked the iron up to nuclear mode and promptly burned a great hole in the tender top. I backed away, and he muttered some youthful piece of verbal communication. The hole was so big it had to be patched up with filler. He then painted and weathered the whole lot, hiding the paternal crater completely by covering it with coal. Why a J10? Because I saw this one at Chester Northgate as a nipper, and it's such a pretty loco.

Note that all my locos carry appropriate lamps and are crewed.

 

 

N5s. Two N5s from two different sources. The one on the left is from Millholme (I know it doesn't carry a lamp, but it was just posed for the picture). It was built by Ian Wilson and rebuilt by me, ensuring that it finally ran really sweetly. The one on the right is from SE Finecast (before the etch for the tanks and bunker was produced). I built this, and it was featured in one of my books. I painted both, and John Houlden did the airbrush weathering.  

 

 

Wills A2 into A1. I mentioned in a previous post how my earlier Peppercorn A1s were arrived at. Four were sold on, but I retain this one if only to try and persuade myself that my modelling has improved down the years. It started off as a Wills A2 kit and the alterations entailed a scratch-built chassis, turned (extended) smokebox, scratch-built central footplate and splashers (the latter, I made a bit too big), tender made thinner and all beading removed from it. I painted and weathered it. It's kept as a curiosity, if nothing else.

 

Finally, for Phil (quack, quack of 36E). Don't do yourself down. Having seen examples of your work, scratch-building would hold no fears for you at all. And anyway, a more apposite description of my work from raw materials, rather than scratch-building should be 'I built it and it got scratched!'

 

I'll be picturing examples of rolling stock next.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Many thanks once more for the interest shown in this thread. Now, in response to some questions regarding rolling stock, here are a few pictures with extended comments describing some of my passenger-carrying rolling stock.

 

 

Bachmann BG. This is Bachmann's current Thompson BG in BR maroon. The re-vamped range of 'Newton' carriages by the firm is imminent, but I wonder how much will be done to correct them. One hopes that the roof profile will be altered to the correct pattern and the 'armoured' sides reduced in thickness. The thick sides aren't too much of a problem with the BG, though this one has had the roof profile changed by my method of drawing a Stanley knife blade, flatly along the too sharp edges and finishing off with emery paper. The destination board brackets have yet to be reinstated (micro-strip) - I should have done that before repainting the roof. As the last vehicle in a train, the gangway should have an end board in place, and don't forget the rear lamp. I've fitted the dummy buckeye, vacuum brake and steam-heating 'bags', too. Weathering completes the underframe, but it should really ride on 8' bogies. Someone asked about compromises. In this case, in a train bowling by, an altered but still compromised vehicle like this, I think is acceptable. Straight out of the box? No.

 

 

Southern Pride Bachmann BG. As a donor vehicle, the Bachmann Thompsons aren't too bad. Here's a BG with Southern Pride's etched sides fitted to represent one of a trio of such vehicles running in the post-war 'Flying Scotsman', then the 'Capitals Limited' and finally 'The Elizabethan'. I made up the whole English portion of 'The Elizabethan' using this method, writing about it in BRM in the last century. The roofs have been altered in the prescribed manner and the whole ensemble looks quite impressive running by at speed. This one should have 8' heavy-duty Gresley bogies, but in a set bowling by? One thing I would say is that proprietary carriages are, in my opinion, too dull. Compare this vehicle with the standard Thompson BG. Prototype pictures show prestige stock like this as being quite shiny, with a rich red finish rather than dull maroon, though cars did vary in rakes depending on how long it was since repainting. Both 'Elizabethan' sets were taken out of the winter 'Flying Scotsman' service in April/May each year, lifted, serviced and repainted for the summer season. They always looked magnificent.

 

 

Southern Pride TK with Ladies' Retiring Room. After service in 'The Elizabethan', two of the pressure ventilated Corridor Thirds with Ladies Retiring Room saw service in 'The Heart of Midlothian', and one is seen here. After 'The Elizabethan' finished, the FKs with Ladies' Retiring room were used, running as unclassed. Again, I've employed the usual method of Southern Pride sides over mutilated Bachmann Thompson donors. This time, it's running on the correct 8' 6" heavy-duty Gresley bogies. The difference in finish between it and the Bachmann. Mk.1s can be noticed, though the Bachmann cars can be bulled up with a bit of polish. Beware, though, because they're painted, not red plastic through and through, and too much vigour might remove the paint. I've yet to remove the over-prominent roof ribs from the Bachmann cars in this picture, and weather the underframes. Though I have several kit-built and 'butchered' Mk.1s (Comet sides over RTR donors or full Comet kits), I see no need in making any more, unless they're of types not made by Bachmann. A compromise, where one goes from the path of kit-building righteousness? I don't think so, especially where dozens of Mk.1s are needed, and if the roof ribs are removed.

 

 

Southern Pride RF and PT. Two more of my Southern Pride/Bachmann conversions, this time producing a Kitchen Car and Pantry Third (later Second). The latter has the rounded corner windows. Both run on the correct HD bogies, and I think these cars look lovely. Not because of what I've done, but because of the shine produced by Halford's Ford Burgundy red car acrylic. Lining and lettering (like the others) are by PC 'Pressfix' transfers.

 

 

Trice Hornby RF. Why Hornby chose to model a Buffet Car for its catering vehicle in the range of Gresleys, I don't know. This would have been a much better option, for Restaurant Firsts like this ran as unclassified vehicles as well. This started life as a Hornby Gresley vehicle but has had Mike Trice sides added to make this RF. Not only do you get a different vehicle but the body-side profile is corrected and the horizontal beading is in the right place. I wrote about how to do it in BRM, and showed the process in motion on Right Track 4. Extra underframe detail and correct HD bogies complete the picture, and the car was painted in the same way as previously described, but this time with just a touch of dry-brush weathering. Note that the corridor-side windows are white, like the kitchen ones the other side. This is correct, but I've seen a professionally-made example where the corridor-side glazing is clear, revealing the interior. This is wrong. Next to it is a similar conversion as 'work in progress', representing a Gresley Pantry Third (later Second). Both cars form the catering facilities in 'The White Rose', the rest of the train being made up of BR Mk.1s (Bachmann), as it should be. An acceptable compromise I believe. 'The White Rose', like most of my trains is made up using BR's official train make-up documents. I'll show some of these in due course.

 

 

Comet RF. This time the work of Tony Geary, an earlier diagram of Gresley RF (note the turnbuckle underframe), built from a Comet kit. Tony's coaches are beautifully done and superbly natural in their environment. Immediately with it is another Thompson Pantry Third (later Second) with Southern Pride sides, but this one was completed by Tony using Trice and Comet parts. Other cars in the train are also made by Mr Geary from Comet kits. Trains like this, formed mainly of Gresley/Thompson vehicles don't appear that often in the day-to-day consists in BR's late '50s/early '60s documents, yet they appear frequently in photographs. Perhaps they're reliefs or summer Saturday extras, though we're told such trains often had no catering facilities. Yet, the photographs show them. Personally, I often model a train (as best I can) from a photograph, though catering vehicles are often difficult to decipher exactly. More compromises? I'll let the reader decide.

 

 

Bachmann Mk.1 catering cars. This pair represent the catering cars in the morning 'Talisman', though for some reason I've got the RU the wrong way round. Normally, the kitchen section would be between the two classes - First Class passengers would be eating in the RFO, and Second Class in the open section of the RU and the TSO alongside. I'm sure such anomalies occurred, but I'll turn it round on the layout. All this train is made up of Bachmann Mk.1s and it was another of my write-ups in BRM. I dismantled the First Class cars (not easy at all) to re-fix glazing that had popped-in, and to 'paint' curtains at the windows (some lower-class cars had popped-in windows as well. I hope Bachmann has improved its glue!). The over-prominent roof ribs have gone (as shown in Right Track 4), and weathering has been applied by son Tom using powders. Coach boards are by John Peck, and this the and the 'Elizabethan' are my only trains fully described so to speak. The 'Elizabethan has ARW boards which are a bit coarse. Ian Wilson's Pacific Models' range of such boards will be used in future, for they are excellent. I suppose this rake could be described as a bit 'dull', but it does have a uniformity which looks 'right'.

 

Why some folk don't look at how real trains were actually made up, I don't know - even if they have to 'selectively shorten' rakes to fit the available space. In a recent issue of one model railway magazine there's a shot of two passenger trains made up of Bachmann Mk.1s. In one train, there's an RFO in the middle of a set but with no Kitchen Car of any kind to support it. Unless the train's empty stock, an RFO is always marshalled adjacent to an RU, RK or RF, and they were the rarest of types. The other train in the picture has a Buffet Car in what's described as a 'local' train. An all-stations stopper with catering facilities in it? Even if you can't make things for yourself and have to write cheques, do check that your trains are as near right as possible. Being a zealot, I insist on correct-length trains (13/14 cars in some cases), and I'm not prepared to compromise on this matter. I'm lucky in having enough space to accommodate such long trains, but I could squeeze in more if I were prepared to compromise on my fiddle yard geometry and running. I'll post some further pictures to show you what I mean.

 

 

Bachmann BSK. The tail-end of 'The Talisman'. Again, make sure everything's in place. My trains only go one way round in the sequence, so I don't need an automatic coupling at both ends. Anyway, for the ECML, many long distance trains ran as two sets - one Up, one Down, reversing roles the next day. So to see, say, the same 'The Elizabethan' set running in both Up and Down directions at different times on the same day isn't right, anyway - especially for the anoraks taking the cars' numbers. It's OK if it's 'The West Riding', 'Yorkshire Pullman, 'Tees-Tyne Pullman' and 'The Northumbrian', but not the Edinburgh trains. You could, of course, run the 'Master Cutler'/Sheffield Pullman' four times if you wished.

 

 

Hornby Comet Kean Pullmans. I hope I've spelt 'Kean' properly - if it's Keen, my apologies. Unfortunately, though Hornby's current Pullmans are magnificent models, they're not really the right type to be used in numbers for a latter day steam depiction of the ECML. Hornby's earlier cars were, though they only made a Parlour First and Parlour Brake Third (now available in the Railroad range). So, though I can use just one or two of Hornby's current Pullmans, most have to be made by butchering the older cars, attaching Comet sides and fitting Kean (plastic) or Trice (cast metal) 10' bogies, the latter for preference for they ride so well. I'm happy to use some of the earlier Parlour Firsts and Parlour Brake Thirds as they are, providing I replace the bogies and re-work some of the roof ventilators. One can be seen in this shot, as can a current Hornby Pullman car, either side of this Kitchen Third running in the 'Yorkshire Pullman'. The downside is the painting of the modified cars. Ian Rathbone did all mine, and there's a not-inconsiderable cost imperative involved. Thus, I admit, I'm a cheque book modeller in that respect (he painted most of my latter day green locos, too). People are very sensitive about being described as such. I'm lucky in as much as I've been able to make locomotives and rolling stock, and having been involved with the guys at Wolverhampton MRC who can make things, too. Thus, I've only written cheques for Little Bytham for parts of the trackwork (Norman Solomon), some stock-painting (Ian Rathbone), some stock (Tony Geary) and the signals (Mick Nicholson). That's apart from paying for the materials - kits, motors, wheels, raw materials, etc, of course. Thus, the buildings and bridges (Ian Wilson) are paid for in locos built, the baseboard-building (Norman Turner) in locos built, the wiring design and fiddle yard control panel (Rob Kinsey) in locos to be built and the working mechanisms for the signals (Graham Nicholas of Grantham, The Streamliner Years' fame) in rolling stock and a loco to be built. Bartering, it's called, and I recommend it. As for the derogatory 'chequebook modeller' epithet. All I can say is, it's your money, you've earned it, so spend it on what you like.

 

More rolling stock elements to follow...

Edited August 6, 2013 by Tony Wright

[westerner]

I must agree with you Tony about some of the long shots that have appeared in the model railway press, I remember one of Leicester South (the new Shipley layout) which made the track work look as if it had been laid on a roller coaster, I hope that was just the way it had stitched together.

[micklner]

Stitching !!  I now realise what was wrong with the recent B1 photo in Peterborough North it showed the Artic pair behind the B1 with a lot of distortion, it looked like it had been hit with a hammer. I had presumed lens distortion after Gilbert showed another photo in which the Artic set was all ok.

[Andy Y]

Looking down the length of a layout or train and pushing the limits of depth of field really can highlight the slightest lack of alignment or evenness. It's not something you can particularly see with the human eyeball as it has such limited depth of field; stacking doesn't necessarily exaggerate it but it can certainly make it more visible. Where it does tend to leave distorted artifacts is on the periphery of an object which is very close to the camera and only the far distance surrounding it; that certainly confuses the software on occasion and it tends to have a guess at what it should look like which is frequently a pig's ear.

 

It can 'jellify' some horizontal straight lines that are toward the edge of an image and I do try to remedy that by patching in part of the original image where that is in focus to correct it. There are occasions though where I failed to notice it, one that Tony regularly reminds me of is the signal cabin on Hatton Bank.

 

 

I should have spent a little more time and care and given a better representation of the box as below.

 

 

I don't mind Tony mentioning it and regular discussions keep me on my toes as it's always intelligent feedback.

 

 

 

 

[Andy Y]

Stitching !!  I now realise what was wrong with the recent B1 photo in Peterborough North it showed the Artic pair behind the B1 with a lot of distortion, it looked like it had been hit with a hammer. I had presumed lens distortion after Gilbert showed another photo in which the Artic set was all ok.

 

I'll freely admit where lens or software issues have caused an issue but in that case it's not a bizarre side-effect of any process. This is a completely unedited or touched-up portion of the the final frame in the series of snaps I took which focussed on the coaches (click to enlarge to actual size of image) and, as I said in a previous post, looking down the length of anything will identify an issue which may not be conventionally seen, knowing that it's there I can just about see it in a couple of other images G has taken but it's very unlikely anyone else would notice it. It's more about having taken an image from an unforgiving angle.

 

 

[bluebottle]

Looking down the length of a layout or train and pushing the limits of depth of field really can highlight the slightest lack of alignment or evenness. It's not something you can particularly see with the human eyeball as it has such limited depth of field; stacking doesn't necessarily exaggerate it but it can certainly make it more visible. Where it does tend to leave distorted artifacts is on the periphery of an object which is very close to the camera and only the far distance surrounding it; that certainly confuses the software on occasion and it tends to have a guess at what it should look like which is frequently a pig's ear.

 

It can 'jellify' some horizontal straight lines that are toward the edge of an image and I do try to remedy that by patching in part of the original image where that is in focus to correct it. There are occasions though where I failed to notice it, one that Tony regularly reminds me of is the signal cabin on Hatton Bank.

 

L16small.jpg

 

I should have spent a little more time and care and given a better representation of the box as below.

 

L16smallb.jpg

 

I don't mind Tony mentioning it and regular discussions keep me on my toes as it's always intelligent feedback.

 

I had to click on the images to get the enlarged versions before I could really see what Andy meant. Most illuminating! Even with the smaller snaps I occasionally post after exhibition visits, the limits of my and my point 'n' shoot's capabilities often mean a struggle with Photoshoppery to get usable results, and I appreciate Andy's no-nonsense approach to giving advice on these matters.

[gwrrob]

Looking down the length of a layout or train and pushing the limits of depth of field really can highlight the slightest lack of alignment or evenness. It's not something you can particularly see with the human eyeball as it has such limited depth of field; stacking doesn't necessarily exaggerate it but it can certainly make it more visible. Where it does tend to leave distorted artifacts is on the periphery of an object which is very close to the camera and only the far distance surrounding it; that certainly confuses the software on occasion and it tends to have a guess at what it should look like which is frequently a pig's ear.

 

It can 'jellify' some horizontal straight lines that are toward the edge of an image and I do try to remedy that by patching in part of the original image where that is in focus to correct it. There are occasions though where I failed to notice it, one that Tony regularly reminds me of is the signal cabin on Hatton Bank.

 

L16small.jpg

 

I should have spent a little more time and care and given a better representation of the box as below.

 

L16smallb.jpg

 

I don't mind Tony mentioning it and regular discussions keep me on my toes as it's always intelligent feedback.

 

My eyes are drawn to the delicious motive power in the shot and I hadn't noticed the box till it was brought to my attention.Fabulous work all round.Incidently, how popular would a RMweb member's visit to see this layout be I wonder.

[New Haven Neil]

What can I say, except please keep writing, Mr Wright!

 

Hint:  Loved the N5's!

[Barry O]

Tony

 

you need a third N5 - Judith Edge does it as an etch with millions of rivets!!!  (mine is under way but I do a few rivets at a time....)

 

Barry O

[davidw]

Many thanks once more for the interest shown in this thread. Now, in response to some questions regarding rolling stock, here are a few pictures with extended comments describing some of my passenger-carrying rolling stock.

 

Bachmann BG.jpg

 

Bachmann BG. This is Bachmann's current Thompson BG in BR maroon. The re-vamped range of 'Newton' carriages by the firm is imminent, but I wonder how much will be done to correct them. One hopes that the roof profile will be altered to the correct pattern and the 'armoured' sides reduced in thickness. The thick sides aren't too much of a problem with the BG, though this one has had the roof profile changed by my method of drawing a Stanley knife blade, flatly along the too sharp edges and finishing off with emery paper. The destination board brackets have yet to be reinstated (micro-strip) - I should have done that before repainting the roof. As the last vehicle in a train, the gangway should have an end board in place, and don't forget the rear lamp. I've fitted the dummy buckeye, vacuum brake and steam-heating 'bags', too. Weathering completes the underframe, but it should really ride on 8' bogies. Someone asked about compromises. In this case, in a train bowling by, an altered but still compromised vehicle like this, I think is acceptable. Straight out of the box? No. 

 

Southern Pride Bachmann BG.jpg

 

Southern Pride Bachmann BG. As a donor vehicle, the Bachmann Thompsons aren't too bade. Here's a BG with Southern Pride's etched sides fitted to represent one of a trio of such vehicles running in the post-war 'Flying Scotsman', then the 'Capitals Limited' and finally 'The Elizabethan'. I made up the whole English portion of 'The Elizabethan' using this method, writing about it in BRM in the last century. The roofs have been altered in the prescribed manner and the whole ensemble looks quite impressive running by at speed. This one should have 8' heavy-duty Gresley bogies, but in a set bowling by? One thing I would say is that proprietary carriages are, in my opinion, too dull. Compare this vehicle with the standard Thompson BG. Prototype pictures show prestige stock like this as being quite shiny, with a rich red finish rather than dull maroon, though cars did vary in rakes depending on how long it was since repainting. Both 'Elizabethan' sets were taken out of the winter 'Flying Scotsman' service in April/May each year, lifted, serviced and repainted for the summer season. They always looked magnificent. 

 

Southern Pride Bachmann TK with Ladies Retiring Room.jpg

 

Southern Pride TK with Ladies' Retiring Room. After service in 'The Elizabethan', two of the pressure ventilated Corridor Thirds with Ladies Retiring Room saw service in 'The Heart of Midlothian', and one is seen here. After 'The Elizabethan' finished, the FKs with Ladies' Retiring room were used, running as unclassed. Again, I've employed the usual method of Southern Pride sides over mutilated Bachmann Thompson donors. This time, it's running on the correct 8' 6" heavy-duty Gresley bogies. The difference in finish between it and the Bachmann. Mk.1s can be noticed, though the Bachmann cars can be bulled up with a bit of polish. Beware, though, because they're painted, not red plastic through and through, and too much vigour might remove the paint. I've yet to remove the over-prominent roof ribs from the Bachmann cars in this picture, and weather the underframes. Though I have several kit-built and 'butchered' Mk.1s (Comet sides over RTR donors or full Comet kits), I see no need in making any more, unless they're of types not made by Bachmann. A compromise, where one goes from the path of kit-building righteousness? I don't think so, especially where dozens of Mk.1s are needed, and if the roof ribs are removed. 

 

Southern Pride Bachmann RK and PT.jpg

 

Southern Pride RF and PT. Two more of my Southern Pride/Bachmann conversions, this time producing a Kitchen Car and Pantry Third (later Second). The latter has the rounded corner windows. Both run on the correct HD bogies, and I think these cars look lovely. Not because of what I've done, but because of the shine produced by Halford's Ford Burgundy red car acrylic. Lining and lettering (like the others) are by PC 'Pressfix' transfers.

 

Trice Hornby RF.jpg

 

Trice Hornby RF. Why Hornby chose to model a Buffet Car for its catering vehicle in the range of Gresleys, I don't know. This would have been a much better option, for Restaurant Firsts like this ran as unclassified vehicles as well. This started life as a Hornby Gresley vehicle but has had Mike Trice sides added to make this RF. Not only do you get a different vehicle but the body-side profile is corrected and the horizontal beading is in the right place. I wrote about how to do it in BRM, and showed the process in motion on Right Track 4. Extra underframe detail and correct HD bogies complete the picture, and the car was painted in the same way as previously described, but this time with just a touch of dry-brush weathering. Note that the corridor-side windows are white, like the kitchen ones the other side. This is correct, but I've seen a professionally-made example where the corridor-side glazing is clear, revealing the interior. This is wrong. Next to it is a similar conversion as 'work in progress', representing a Gresley Pantry Third (later Second). Both cars form the catering facilities in 'The White Rose', the rest of the train being made up of BR Mk.1s (Bachmann), as it should be. An acceptable compromise I believe. 'The White Rose', like most of my trains is made up using BR's official train make-up documents. I'll show some of these in due course.

 

Comet RF.jpg

 

Comet RF. This time the work of Tony Geary, an earlier diagram of Gresley RF (note the turnbuckle underframe), built from a Comet kit. Tony's coaches are beautifully done and superbly natural in their environment. Immediately with it is another Thompson Pantry Third (later Second) with Southern Pride sides, but this one was completed by Tony using Trice and Comet parts. Other cars in the train are also made by Mr Geary from Comet kits. Trains like this, formed mainly of Gresley/Thompson vehicles don't appear that often in the day-to-day consists in BR's late '50s/early '60s documents, yet they appear frequently in photographs. Perhaps they're reliefs or summer Saturday extras, though we're told such trains often had no catering facilities. Yet, the photographs show them. Personally, I often model a train (as best I can) from a photograph, though catering vehicles are often difficult to decipher exactly. More compromises? I'll let the reader decide.

 

Bachmann Mk.1 catering cars.jpg

 

Bachmann Mk.1 catering cars. This pair represent the catering cars in the morning 'Talisman', though for some reason I've got the RU the wrong way round. Normally, the kitchen section would be between the two classes - First Class passengers would be eating in the RFO, and Second Class in the open section of the RU and the TSO alongside. I'm sure such anomalies occurred, but I'll turn it round on the layout. All this train is made up of Bachmann Mk.1s and it was another of my write-ups in BRM. I dismantled the First Class cars (not easy at all) to re-fix glazing that had popped-in, and to 'paint' curtains at the windows (some lower-class cars had popped-in windows as well. I hope Bachmann has improved its glue!). The over-prominent roof ribs have gone (as shown in Right Track 4), and weathering has been applied by son Tom using powders. Coach boards are by John Peck, and this the and the 'Elizabethan' are my only trains fully described so to speak. The 'Elizabethan has ARW boards which are a bit coarse. Ian Wilson's Pacific Models' range of such boards will be used in future, for they are excellent. I suppose this rake could be described as a bit 'dull', but it does have a uniformity which looks 'right'. 

 

Why some folk don't look at how real trains were actually made up, I don't know - even if they have to 'selectively shorten' rakes to fit the available space. In a recent issue of one model railway magazine there's a shot of two passenger trains made up of Bachmann Mk.1s. In one train, there's an RFO in the middle of a set but with no Kitchen Car of any kind to support it. Unless the train's empty stock, an RFO is always marshalled adjacent to an RU, RK or RF, and they were the rarest of types. The other train in the picture has a Buffet Car in what's described as a 'local' train. An all-stations stopper with catering facilities in it? Even if you can't make things for yourself and have to write cheques, do check that your trains are as near right as possible. Being a zealot, I insist on correct-length trains (13/14 cars in some cases), and I'm not prepared to compromise on this matter. I'm lucky in having enough space to accommodate such long trains, but I could squeeze in more if I were prepared to compromise on my fiddle yard geometry and running. I'll post some further pictures to show you what I mean. 

 

Bachmann BSK.jpg

 

Bachmann BSK. The tail-end of 'The Talisman'. Again, make sure everything's in place. My trains only go one way round in the sequence, so I don't need an automatic coupling at both ends. Anyway, for the ECML, many long distance trains ran as two sets - one Up, one Down, reversing roles the next day. So to see, say, the same 'The Elizabethan' set running in both Up and Down directions at different times on the same day isn't right, anyway - especially for the anoraks taking the cars' numbers. It's OK if it's 'The West Riding', 'Yorkshire Pullman, 'Tees-Tyne Pullman' and 'The Northumbrian', but not the Edinburgh trains. You could, of course, run the 'Master Cutler'/Sheffield Pullman' four times if you wished. 

 

Hornby Comet Kean Pullmans.jpg

 

Hornby Comet Kean Pullmans. I hope I've spelt 'Kean' properly - if it's Keen, my apologies. Unfortunately, though Hornby's current Pullmans are magnificent models, they're not really the right type to be used in numbers for a latter day steam depiction of the ECML. Hornby's earlier cars were, though they only made a Parlour First and Parlour Brake Third (now available in the Railroad range). So, though I can use just one or two of Hornby's current Pullmans, most have to be made by butchering the older cars, attaching Comet sides and fitting Kean (plastic) or Trice (cast metal) 10' bogies, the latter for preference for they ride so well. I'm happy to use some of the earlier Parlour Firsts and Parlour Brake Thirds as they are, providing I replace the bogies and re-work some of the roof ventilators. One can be seen in this shot, as can a current Hornby Pullman car, either side of this Kitchen Third running in the 'Yorkshire Pullman'. The downside is the painting of the modified cars. Ian Rathbone did all mine, and there's a not-inconsiderable cost imperative involved. Thus, I admit, I'm a cheque book modeller in that respect (he painted most of my latter day green locos, too). People are very sensitive about being described as such. I'm lucky in as much as I've been able to make locomotives and rolling stock, and having been involved with the guys at Wolverhampton MRC who can make things, too. Thus, I've only written cheques for Little Bytham for parts of the trackwork (Norman Solomon), some stock-painting (Ian Rathbone), some stock (Tony Geary) and the signals (Mick Nicholson). That's apart from paying for the materials - kits, motors, wheels, raw materials, etc, of course. Thus, the buildings and bridges (Ian Wilson) are paid for in locos built, the baseboard-building (Norman Turner) in locos built, the wiring design and fiddle yard control panel (Rob Kinsey) in locos to be built and the working mechanisms for the signals (Graham Nicholas of Grantham, The Streamliner Years' fame) in rolling stock and a loco to be built. Bartering, it's called, and I recommend it. As for the derogatory 'chequebook modeller' epithet. All I can say is, it's your money, you've earned it, so spend it on what you like. 

 

More rolling stock elements to follow...      

 

Many thanks for such a full answer

[gr.king]

I'm tempted to suggest that on looking really hard at that contentious "distorted" artic coach set on Peterborough North that it may well be built from the former BSL, now Phoenix SRG aluminium coach kits. Look at the deep overlap between the down-turned "gutters" of the pressed aluminium roofs and the unrealistically deep cant-rails of the body sides, plus the slightly irregular line of the stamped out windows, especially the top-lights of the brake section. I well remember putting together five such coaches myself, making lots of alterations to improve features or reduce/hide faults as I went. I can readily believe that the distortions that can be seen are not photographic/stacking faults but are real ones in the models as it is all too easy to produce such iregularities when handling and trimming the soft aluminium unless you exercise fanatical care and really take your time. Only after I'd built my coaches and applied yellow-lined mock teak finish did I discover that Southern Pride offered some nice neat etched sides that could be combined with an extruded 'ally' or moulded plastic roof to produce the same models much more easily and neatly!

Edited August 6, 2013 by gr.king

[micklner]

If you look at anotherside on  photo on page 173 of Peterborough North the Coaches whilst there are tiny defects the main one being a slight lean on the Brake Coach of the Twin set there is nothing like the "hammer" blow effect in the above picture .!!

 

Most bizarre

[BMacdermott]

Hello Tony

 

Very many thanks indeed for the comprehensive reply (#311) to my posting about the 4F chimney. Much appreciated. I have the book you mention and have found the photo.

 

I'm a bit of a pedant when it comes to running qualities of locos (and stock) and can assure you that the original tender-drive on this one is excellent. The term 'well-oiled sewing machine' springs to mind. I have live frog Code 75 diamond crossings and the loco falters not one iota when negotiating these - even at the slowest of speeds. Even though I have 'close-coupled' the loco to tender, I found yesterday that it will go round radius one curves (which I have in my reverse loop hidden sidings). Much as I dislike traction tyres, this loco will be one of my favourites for many years to come, I'm sure.

 

I look forward to reading more on rolling stock. I have long campaigned for the makers to balance loco production with coaching stock.

 

Kind regards

 

Brian

[Tony Wright]

What an interesting development (sorry about the pun).

 

My hat's off to you for entering into a debate in this manner Andy, and for your honesty with regard to the 'pitfalls' associated with all advancements in technology. Remember, I'm Ned Ludd's immediate predecessor and have to be dragged kicking and squealing out of the darkness. I doubt if I'll ever be able to get the infinite depth of field you do, but I'm far too old to learn anyway, having been a pensioner for two years.

 

I've tried to replicate the shot of Gilbert's 1935 gangwayed artics (shot 02) as near as possible, taking pictures of the same vehicles, but built from a different source.I agree, at such a sharp angle, any anomalies in the building of vehicles will be exacerbated to an extreme - I know, because just when I think I'm getting somewhere with my building, I take a picture and everything I thought was perpendicular, parallel and true is anything but, be it loco or carriage. However, it's a pity the camera has exposed (apologies for another pun!) the shortfalls in those particular vehicles. Great Northern is to be heartily congratulated in having the foresight and commitment to 'oversee' such a modern classic as his Peterborough North. Quite rightly, it's by miles the most popular layout on RMWeb but advances in photography all to frequently show up what the naked eye doesn't see, and those carriages underneath Peter Leyland's peerless station buildings are a bit anomalous. May I suggest they're not photographed at such an angle in close-up again?

 

But, as by way of a defence, might I suggest viewers scrutinise closely the two pictures of 'my' 1935 Gresley artics. I say 'my', for they're my property, but are completely the work of Tony Geary. I don't have the exact CK to go between the two pairs (I only have one pair, anyway), so an ordinary Gresley CK is substituted for the picture. Gilbert's dead right in using the set in a King's Cross-Peterborough services, but for work a bit further north they were split up more, and mine runs as part of a through train. I say 'by way of a defence', because I think Gilbert's set is made from BSL/Phoenix kits, though I stand to be corrected. If so, and if they're the same as the many BSL/Phoenix carriage kits I've put together, then the sides are stamped out, not etched (if that situation has changed, then perhaps a viewer will put me right).

 

For Stoke Summit's coach construction, just such a 1935 artic steel pair was required, and we examined the BSL/Phoenix option but rejected it because of its relative crudity in comparison with the etched sides being produced at the time. I've mentioned before how having Dave Lewis of Southern Pride as a member was so fortuitous to the Stoke group, but everyone stepped in for the production of the carriages we wanted. It wasn't just a matter of money (though we all contributed). Amongst us we did the research, Dave produced the master for the etching, Tony Geary and I did the test-building, I wrote the instructions for some and initially formed all the sides before Dave got a press, and Norman Turner produced several patterns. I was once called 'lucky' by someone, for being part of a group who could make the things it wanted. I certainly count myself lucky to have been part of that group consisting of such marvellous friends, but everyone was a craftsman in one form or another. Yes, money was essential (the 'Elizabethan's' first test etch had cost £600.00 to produce) but we, as a group, had the skills to see the projects through - all the Thompson carriage types, numerous Gresley types (including the 1935 artics), non-gangwayed stock, BR catering cars and the 'Anglo Scottish Car Carrier'. Rob Kinsey had started the patterns to make the masters for the Cliffe-Uddingston cement block train (the circular container sort) but Stoke Summit has been retired now, so there's no necessity. Dave Lewis, bless him, had the business, the drawing abilities, the contacts and much more, but nobody just threw money at him. I suppose I was lucky. Apologies for the protracted nature of the above, but I want to set the record straight with regard to how we arrived at the vehicles we required. And, if those vehicles were already available but weren't of the standard we wanted, then we avoided the hostage to fortune situation that others might have found themselves in. And, Dave sold the items to the public as adjuncts to his already-established range.

 

 

 

Was it worth it? I hope the pictures of the artics prove it. Dave produced the sides, and Tony made up the rest with Comet's components, with a Kirk pair of roofs. He also did the painting and weathering. I did suggest close scrutiny of the pictures, and I can't deny that both these cars aren't exactly dead level in the centre (the problems of articulation), neither is every window entirely flush in its reveal (these cars have had a hard life) and the roof cornices could be better, but the result is far superior to the alternative. Yes, there's the relative building standard to consider as well, and Mr Geary has seldom been surpassed in my opinion, though that's for others to judge. 

 

I don't want this to come over as a criticism of one man's models and another man's model making, but, now that Andy has explained that it wasn't a 'stacking' consequence nor a lens aberration, then I suggest the 'camera cannot lie'. 

 

Finally, I've stood on the same spot (or almost) on PW's Leamington as Mr York. I just took 'one' shot with a Nikon 'bridge' camera. No distortion! 

 

 

 

[micklner]

The Camera changes the shape on these pictures too.

Your close up makes the brake section look much too short and the roof rainstrips on the same coach have strange wobbly shape too compared with other twin and the following coach. Not as extreme as the one on Peterbourgh but still there.

As I said on my last post on this thread the side on photo Gilbert posted shows no extremes as on the angled photo. The only obvious thing is the slight difference in coach side angles due to the artic fitting as mentioned by yourself above. I had s imilar problem on my silver Jubille set which took was cured by packing using MJT etches between the pairs.

 

Great thread

[great northern]

In view of the discussion regarding my Artic set, may I be permitted to make a few submissions? First though Tony, I am delighted to read that you can now perceive that your darkest days may be over, and that you now feel that you can do more. My very best wishes, and may your recovery continue and gather pace.

 

Right, to that Artic set. It is indeed from the Phoenix kit, and was built by Mike Radford of Marc Models, who was at the time at least associated with Phoenix. It was the only source I knew of at the time for these sets, which as Tony says were an essential part of the ECML scene at the Southern end. This set has the original 52ft 6in composite, even though Harris suggests that they were repaced by Thompson or MK1 vehicles post war. I was surprised, but also pleased,  to read in the HMRS Journal last year that as late as July 1958 a set was observed running on a KX - Peterborough service with the original short composite still in place.  I was aware of the shortcomings of the kit when I decided to commission the model, but I felt then, and still do, that despite those shortcomings the result was a good deal better than not being able to replicate these sets at all.   

 

I thought I would experiment a little to see what results my Canon G12 would give when trying to take the same shot as the one Andy Y took. The first shot was taken this morning in very bright sunlight, which accentuated the entirely prototypical gloom under the overall roof. I removed the loco, and tried just to shoot the carriages using zoom.    

The distortion of the first twin is not as severe as on Andy's photo, but look what happens when we get as far as the composite.      

This one is another shot in very bright light, but with no attempt at all to use either zoom or the macro setting - just a normal record shot. Not much distortion to be seen.  

   

This was a poor attempt at replicating Andy's shot again using the zoom feature, and very similar distortion is immediately obvious.  I then had an idea, dangerous at my age I know, and decided to take a similar photo, but using different stock.  

This is a poor effort too, but taken this evening, when 14 second exposure was needed. The rake is composed of Bachmann MK1's, and we all know that they are very good models, but it seems to me that the use of the zoom has distorted these also.  Finally, here is another "normal" shot of the first twin, from a different angle, but intended to show that it really isn't anywhere as bad as has been suggested.   

 

Sorry for highjacking your thread Tony, but you did ask for comment, and mine would be that as you say the right camera is needed for this kind of shot. My G12 is very good of its kind, but any attempt at this kind of close up defeats it - it seems that the short composite in particular throws it completely.