Wright writes.....

[johndon]

South Pelaw Junction in EM: http://southpelawem.blogspot.com/?m=1

 

dead in the centre of NER territory with barely a passenger coach to be seen and, to me and the others of the group building it, at least as interesting as any location on the ECML. 

[PaulCheffus]

17 hours ago, 2750Papyrus said:

 

Dry ice?

 

I saw a production of Swan Lake in the round at the Albert Hall a couple of years ago when the dry ice mist reached the dancers' chests.  A bit counter-productive for a ballet!

Hi

 

Are you sure it was dry ice? I worked for a company over twenty years ago that developed a smoke machine that would give the same effect as dry ice but without the residual mess.

 

cheers

 

paul

[Jamiel]

2 hours ago, PaulCheffus said:

Hi

 

Are you sure it was dry ice? I worked for a company over twenty years ago that developed a smoke machine that would give the same effect as dry ice but without the residual mess.

 

cheers

 

paul

I have been on film sets using smoke chilled by machines, it is very different to dry ice which forms a shapeless fog that clings to the ground. The chilled smoke forms shapes rivulets and has character, far more aesthetically pleasing than dry ice, and also less dangerous to sound men hidden under things where they can gradually asphyxiate in dry ice.

Jamie

[Headstock]

 

I can't say that I share the aesthetic dislike for NE locomotives expressed earlier. The D20's were lovely looking locomotives. Isn't this a marvellous photo of a D20 departing York on a Newcastle Southampton train. Of interest are the NE and GN joint carriages towards the head of the train and what looks to be a L&Y Dreadnought over on the shed. Lots of modelling potential.

 

https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/LNERSteam/Worsdell-locomotives/Wilson-Worsdell-Tender-Engine-designs/WWorsdell-Class-D20-NER-Class-R-4-4-0-Locomotives/i-dX2hp3w/A

 

[PMP]

3 hours ago, PaulCheffus said:

Hi

 

Are you sure it was dry ice? I worked for a company over twenty years ago that developed a smoke machine that would give the same effect as dry ice but without the residual mess.

 

cheers

 

paul

I’ve used both dry ice and ‘theatrical smoke’ for layout photography. I felt I got better images from the dry ice, however it’s a much more (genuinely) hazardous material to use. The theatre smoke can also be a vegetable oil based smoke as the one I used was, with the potential to leave a very thin film of residue and an odd pong!

 

The dry ice by contrast left no residue and was a little easier to corral for fog effects. It is ‘heavier’ than theatre smoke so you need to work faster before it dissipates, and again with emphasis on its hazardous properties for burns/inhalation to you and the potential effects of a pouring -80c gas over your train set. Be prepared for some collateral damage!

[APOLLO]

5 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Leeds city, or New station, was an amalgamation of different companies stations including the NER. They built the outer platforms on the Holbeck side. The trains were not exactly what I would call short, the Thames Clyde express as an example.

 

OOOPS !! made a blooper there - I meant Leeds Central.

 

Brit15

[Bernard Lamb]

31 minutes ago, PMP said:

 

 

The dry ice by contrast left no residue and was a little easier to corral for fog effects. It is ‘heavier’ than theatre smoke so you need to work faster before it dissipates, and again with emphasis on its hazardous properties for burns/inhalation to you and the potential effects of a pouring -80c gas over your train set. Be prepared for some collateral damage!

As you say a hazardous substance.

I used it at one time for testing the strength of steel forgings that were to be used in cold stores.

Dissolve dry ice block in paraffin or alcohol depending on the temperature required.

Immerse sample forgings until cold enough.

Fix down securely in clamps and whack forgings using a 2m long charpy pendulum.

Full protective gear essential.

From memory the alcohol version was well below -100c.

Bernard

[Enterprisingwestern]

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Peter,

 

But where am I going to find the time? 

 

It would appear to be no longer the sort of article BRM might be interested in - tricky soldering/forming metal parts/working on a large project, so elsewhere? 

 

Right now I'm building five locos on commission, I have two to fit valve gear to (built by others, then they got stumped), two which need chassis making (beyond their builders?), Gilbert Barnatt wants an A2/2 built by me, I have three of my own locos to complete, a MR/M&GNR girder bridge to build and that rodding to finish. Not only that, I have layout photographic commissions coming up, more bookazines to write for Irwell, further books on the horizon to write for Booklaw and (right now) umpteen products to photograph for BRM. 

 

It does make me laugh on occasions when folk are involved in making/writing/demonstrating/explaining/photographing/etc/etc stuff relating to our great hobby, that when they express an opinion or offer advice, they're soundly 'scolded' in some quarters for 'dictating' to others. 

 

Even posting stuff on here takes time, though I do it because (I hope) it has some little worth and I enjoy it.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Now you're retired you should have plenty of time, (according to some)!

 

Mike.

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

I can't say that I share the aesthetic dislike for NE locomotives expressed earlier. The D20's were lovely looking locomotives. Isn't this a marvellous photo of a D20 departing York on a Newcastle Southampton train. Of interest are the NE and GN joint carriages towards the head of the train and what looks to be a L&Y Dreadnought over on the shed. Lots of modelling potential.

 

https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/LNERSteam/Worsdell-locomotives/Wilson-Worsdell-Tender-Engine-designs/WWorsdell-Class-D20-NER-Class-R-4-4-0-Locomotives/i-dX2hp3w/A

 

I don't share an 'aesthetic dislike' for NER locos, Andrew, and the D20 is certainly a handsome loco. 

 

However, there are some details about the NER locos which I'm not so keen on with regard to aesthetics - entirely subjective, I admit. The NER 'flat' smokebox door isn't the prettiest of 'faces' in my view. Those NER classes which received GNR-style smokebox doors later in their lives benefited considerably in front-end appearance my opinion. As did the B1s and B17s, once the flat door was replaced. 

 

NER cabs looked very old-fashioned. Take the K3s for example. Those built with NER-style cabs with low side windows never look as well-proportioned as those with higher cab windows. A personal opinion, of course.

 

That the NER built some fine locos, there's no doubt. The Q7 was as good and as powerful as any other eight-coupled loco in the realm, and the J27 was as good an 0-6-0 as anywhere else. 

 

It's just that NER locos (to me) aren't quite as good-looking as other equivalents.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I don't share an 'aesthetic dislike' for NER locos, Andrew, and the D20 is certainly a handsome loco. 

 

However, there are some details about the NER locos which I'm not so keen on with regard to aesthetics - entirely subjective, I admit. The NER 'flat' smokebox door isn't the prettiest of 'faces' in my view. Those NER classes which received GNR-style smokebox doors later in their lives benefited considerably in front-end appearance my opinion. As did the B1s and B17s, once the flat door was replaced. 

 

NER cabs looked very old-fashioned. Take the K3s for example. Those built with NER-style cabs with low side windows never look as well-proportioned as those with higher cab windows. A personal opinion, of course.

 

That the NER built some fine locos, there's no doubt. The Q7 was as good and as powerful as any other eight-coupled loco in the realm, and the J27 was as good an 0-6-0 as anywhere else. 

 

It's just that NER locos (to me) aren't quite as good-looking as other equivalents.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Evening Tony,

 

I wasn't actually referring to your post and I would make it clear before I comment that I'm not a NER fanboy. However, come on now, The GN locomotives may have had a nice 'face' but the J6 is a god awful misshapen looking thing, the J27 being a much better looking locomotive overall. I must also comment regards the NE cab, I think that you are being slightly unfair in that the LNER group standard design was based on that of the NER. When comparing cab design a more pertinent comparison would be the temporary bus shelter construction that the GN stuck on the back of the K3 et al. Though Gresley managed to come up with something better for the two GN Pacific, there was no guarantee that it would have become standard across the board. Indeed, it was the NE men that said in no uncertain terms, 'we ain't having that bus shelter thing, we is civilised up here, thank you very much'.

 

That said, diversity is the thing. That is what makes the LNER such a wonderfull subject to model.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Headstock

[t-b-g]

I don't think the relative lack of NER based ECML layouts is anything to do with the way locos looked.

 

In BR days, which most people choose to model, virtually all the main line passenger trains, certainly the expresses, were in the hands of the same locos that appeared further south.

 

There has always been a very much London centred approach to modelling the LNER and the further away you get from the capital, the less you see.

 

It is a case that if the LNER was a tree, then the London end of the ECML was the main trunk. As you go north, branches go off to different places. So the only place you would see all the main express trains was at the southern end of the line. So the further north you go, the more spread out are the routes, the concentration of the most prestigious trains and the enthusiasts.

 

That plus the fact that no NER based layout would be complete without certain locos, like B16s, that have never been available in RTR form. If they, A8s, G5s and J27s had been around in RTR form there would be far more NER area layouts than there are. 

[Clive Mortimore]

I like the look of NER motive power. I am beginning to build up quite a collection. I have 2 Met Cam 4 car units, a BRCW 4 car unit and a Derby 4 car unit. Plus I have 3 of the 5 Derby 3 car units the NER had, 2 Calder valley sets, a Met Cam class 111 power twin and various other 2 and 3 car units. I also have some NER based class 24s, 37s, a 27 (without boiler) and tonight I was working on a 25/0 all for my ER based layout, with through workings to Leeds York, Harrogate, Hull and other exotic places. I would like a B16/2 or B16/3 to work the odd passenger instead of a B1.

 

Then I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Clive Mortimore

[micklner]

Is this not beautiful ??  The GN version is miles behind in looks !!

 

[grahame]

5 minutes ago, micklner said:

Is this not beautiful ??  The GN version is miles behind in looks !!

 

 

Unfortunately not to me - as they say it's in the eye of the beholder. And, to me, that looks unbalanced particularly to the rear of the loco with the cab appearing to be an afterthought stuck on with the design looking like a children's play or tree house. There's something odd and wrong about the rear third of the loco length perched on the single tiny wheel set. Is it missing a set of driving wheels?

 

G

[Atso]

19 minutes ago, micklner said:

Is this not beautiful ??  The GN version is miles behind in looks !!

 

Sadly not for me either Mick. Although the locomotive does have great character and the model is beautifully built and finished. It does the builder great credit.

 

I'm a fan of Doncaster products myself which I think is down to the use of 'S' curves on the running plate. This generally creates a much smoother and aesthetically pleasing look to my eyes. As a result, I think that the GN large boiler Atlantic is superior in looks but is inferior to Gresley's A1/A3 classes.

 

Then again, Grahame doesn't like the GNR C1 class either so I can only assume that he completely lacks a sense of aesthetics!  (I'm joking of course Grahame)

 

As Clive said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As such does it matter what we each think of a design of locomotive. As far as modelling goes, there is only one opinion that will (and should) matter.

[Jol Wilkinson]

32 minutes ago, micklner said:

Is this not beautiful ??  The GN version is miles behind in looks !!

 

No.

 

Much as I like some NER locos, that illustrates a lack of balance in its looks. The cab looks too large, while the front end paint scheme makes it look disjointed and the rear end, as Grahame points out, looks wrong. It is also about proportion, the small driving wheels, long "rear end" and large cab aren't visually balanced. Larger driving wheels and a bigger tender might have improved it.

 

Locos were designed primarily for function but some/many also achieved a visually pleasing result. The LNWR 2-2-2-2 Greater Britain and John Hick classes didn't, The Lady of the Lake 2-2-2s were too heavy looking at the front end, while the Teutonic  2-2-2-0 looked better with the shorter front frames. A4's look better than the streamlined Stanier Pacifics, but the non streamlined LMS ones look better than LNER 4-6-2s and the earlier LMS Princess class.

 

It is all subjective anyway, although there are some locos that manage to look ugly to even the most devoted fans.

 

Jol

Edited April 1, 2019 by Jol Wilkinson
Spelling/grammar

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I don't think the relative lack of NER based ECML layouts is anything to do with the way locos looked.

 

In BR days, which most people choose to model, virtually all the main line passenger trains, certainly the expresses, were in the hands of the same locos that appeared further south.

 

There has always been a very much London centred approach to modelling the LNER and the further away you get from the capital, the less you see.

 

It is a case that if the LNER was a tree, then the London end of the ECML was the main trunk. As you go north, branches go off to different places. So the only place you would see all the main express trains was at the southern end of the line. So the further north you go, the more spread out are the routes, the concentration of the most prestigious trains and the enthusiasts.

 

That plus the fact that no NER based layout would be complete without certain locos, like B16s, that have never been available in RTR form. If they, A8s, G5s and J27s had been around in RTR form there would be far more NER area layouts than there are. 

I agree Tony,

 

Though there were one or two named trains which operated solely in the 'North' of the ex-LNER system - the 'North Briton' being one. Even named trains which originated on Tyneside headed 'South' - the 'Tees-Tyne Pullman', 'Northumbrian', 'Norseman', etc. 

 

I think you're also right in thinking that the lack of NER (or NBR) RTR locos (and stock) in the past (and still today) has meant fewer (mainstream) layouts representing the Northern Division of the LNER or the North Eastern/Scottish Regions of BR. Could it could be a recurring chicken and egg situation? Not popular at source, so no RTR support, so not popular................?

 

Until relatively recently there were no 4mm RTR NER locos available, other than a J72 (is this right?). It's only with the advent of a Q6, and the forthcoming G5 where things have 'improved'. Yes, B1s and K1s (built at Darlington, at least in part) were widespread over the NER system but where are the NER 0-6-0s (survivors until the end of steam) and the various NER 4-6-0s in RTR form? 

 

EX-NBR locos have been just as much under-represented, yet the J36 has been a 'best-seller' I'm told. 

 

At least when one does see a layout based on NER practice, it's a good bet that most of the locos and stock will have been built. Which is very-refreshing, at least to me. 

 

A brilliant NER layout on the circuit right now is South Pelaw in EM.

 

 

That ex-NER 0-6-2T in the foreground must have been kit-/scratch-built, though 'at least' the 9F is an RTR conversion. Look at those kit-built wagons as well. If nothing else, an NER-based layout needs lots of fantastic signals!

 

 

 

Wise modellers employ what's now available RTR and alter/convert/improve/detail it to suit their needs; both this O1 and Q6 originate from Hornby, but there's still much to do. 

 

Ex-NER motive power was not that common south of Doncaster, but the occasional B16 would appear heading Up. Thus, I have all the derivatives of the class for Little Bytham.

 

 

This my prehistoric Nu-Cast B16/3, running on a scratch-built chassis with (would you believe?) Hamblings driving wheels! Now well into its fifth decade, I keep it more for sentimental reasons, especially as it's all my own work.

 

 

A much better B16 is represented here, in the form of this PDK B16/2. Originally built by Mike Edge, I re-motored it and painted it. Tom Foster weathered it. 

 

So, let's hope for more NER representations in the future.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

[grahame]

3 minutes ago, Atso said:

 

Then again, Grahame doesn't like the GNR C1 class either so I can only assume that he completely lacks a sense of aesthetics!  (I'm joking of course Grahame)

 

As Clive said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As such does it matter what we each think of a design of locomotive. As far as modelling goes, there is only one opinion that will (and should) matter.

 

Yes, it's a fine model but its design (and the C1) holds little of beauty in my eye. I prefer the school of more purposeful and functional design. I find the SR Q1 0-6-0 much more 'beautiful' and satisfying to my eye with its latent raw power looks, stripped down decoration and sheer simplistic style. Very different, very effective and eye-catching. Here's my N gauge version (RTR I'm afraid):

 

 

G

 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, micklner said:

Is this not beautiful ??  The GN version is miles behind in looks !!

 

Why do you have to justify a loco's good looks by denigrating the aesthetics of another, Mick?

 

 

 

Both types look aesthetically-equal, especially in the right setting.

 

On a personal level, though I think the NER Atlantic is very 'pretty', the GN Atlantic is very 'impressive'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Tony Wright
to rearrange the pictures

[Tony Wright]

13 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

Yes, it's a fine model but its design (and the C1) holds little of beauty in my eye. I prefer the school of more purposeful and functional design. I find the SR Q1 0-6-0 much more 'beautiful' and satisfying to my eye with its latent raw power looks, stripped down decoration and sheer simplistic style. Very different, very effective and eye-catching. Here's my N gauge version (RTR I'm afraid):

 

 

G

 

RTR it might be, Grahame,

 

But I doubt if that's how it came out of the box! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Atso]

12 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

Yes, it's a fine model but its design (and the C1) holds little of beauty in my eye. I prefer the school of more purposeful and functional design. I find the SR Q1 0-6-0 much more 'beautiful' and satisfying to my eye with its latent raw power looks, stripped down decoration and sheer simplistic style. Very different, very effective and eye-catching. Here's my N gauge version (RTR I'm afraid):

 

 

G

 

 

While I hold a different set of aesthetic values, I do believe that it is these differences of perception that make this such a great and diverse hobby.

 

Please don't do yourself a disservice regarding the Q1. While it is a Dapol model, it is hardly an "out of the box" product and the article covering the personal touches to it was brilliant (in your "N'spirations" series of publications?). 

[Chamby]

If we’re talking about good looking locomotives, surely Mr. Robinson’s 4-6-0’s deserve a mention.  They may be regarded by some as a less successful design than others, but they looked great!

[Bucoops]

I don't have any photos to share, but teh ex-GER Clauds take some beating for their elegant looks  Tragic that none survived :(

[micklner]

The GN Atlantic comment was a April the 1st comment .  I have never seen any steam engine that could be called totally ugly !!!  

 

As the D20 has been mentioned . 

 

[Tony Wright]

16 minutes ago, Chamby said:

 

 

16 minutes ago, Chamby said:

If we’re talking about good looking locomotives, surely Mr. Robinson’s 4-6-0’s deserve a mention.  They may be regarded by some as a less successful design than others, but they looked great!

They were indeed, Phil...................