Wright writes.....

[MarkC]

10 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

Wasn't the curve eased in preparation for the HSTs arrival?

I would think so, but as part of a general speeding up of the ECML. The other curve in the Durham area that was eased, of course, was north of Durham Station at Newton Hall, where part of the old Sunderland line was utilised for this purpose.

Edited April 10, 2019 by MarkC

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Mark,

 

The caption has been sent off to Irwell.

 

I get this all the time. A picture is sent through from Irwell Towers with the usual - 'Where, what, why, when?' I'm usually OK with ECML steam-era pictures, but thanks for your confirmation of the Relly Mill location. 

 

A further question, if I may, please? Does anyone know about the cement traffic workings on the railways through Chester in the '70s? 

 

Isn't the interweb a fantastic resource at times? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Ah, you get them too of course.    I had one of Doncaster to deal with for Mr Irwell the other day, makes a nice change from the Western ones he has been bombarding me with in recent weeks.  And at least I managed to give Chris just about every bit of relevant detail except the lot numbers for the (BR build/converted) vehicles passing Doncaster North Signal Box.

 

As far as  your descriptive 'Kernow's' was concerned you were mostly correct - both the superb D6XX and the equally superb Bulleid diesel were models commissioned from Chinese factories by the Kernow Model Centres and sold under their label.  The J70 was commissioned by Model Rail magazine (from Rapido Trains) and is distributed on their behalf by Kernow.

[Clive Mortimore]

14 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

It is a Crompton (Class 45) two window center headcode display which puts it in the batch D30 to D67 or D137 as it is a namer. With a regimental nameplate, there is a round badge above the name. It is not D53, D60 or D61 as they had been refurbished and had the same triangular grille and a one piece headcode window as a class 46. It also appears to be a class 45/0 as I cannot see a ETH fitting, so I would guess at 45 014 (D137) as the other named 45/0s were split headcode locos except D60 but as that is already excluded because it was refurbished. So it is "The Cheshire Regiment". With the headcode displaying 0000 I would also date the photo as 1976 to early 1977.

OK I hold my hands up and admit I am wrong.

 

I was using the 1975 ABC.....I turned the page over and there is a list of Class 45s "still to be classified as 45/0 or 45/1".

 

Can I add these other possibilities

D49 The Manchester Regiment,  45 039

D54 The Royal Pioneer Corps, 45 023

 

There were two other named locos but their names were on a double row and the name plate looks too naorrow for a double row name.

D50 Kings Shropshire Light Infantry, 45 040

D58 The Kings Own Royal Boarder Regiment, 45 043

[Chamby]

.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Chamby
Clive beat me to it! 45 014 had domino headcode s by March ‘78 and Tony’s photo has trees in full leaf...

[unclebobkt]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

         ... .

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

D50 Kings Shropshire Light Infantry, 45 040

D58 The Kings Own Royal Boarder Regiment, 45 043

 

  D58. - Possibly you meant 'The King's Own Scottish Borderers.', aka. KOSBIs.'?

[Mallard60022]

2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

OK I hold my hands up and admit I am wrong.

 

I was using the 1975 ABC.....I turned the page over and there is a list of Class 45s "still to be classified as 45/0 or 45/1".

 

Can I add these other possibilities

D49 The Manchester Regiment,  45 039

D54 The Royal Pioneer Corps, 45 023

 

There were two other named locos but their names were on a double row and the name plate looks too naorrow for a double row name.

D50 Kings Shropshire Light Infantry, 45 040

D58 The Kings Own Royal Boarder Regiment, 45 043

I reckon it is a shortish plate and so '23 could be the beast.

Phil

[Clive Mortimore]

48 minutes ago, unclebobkt said:

         ... .

 

  D58. - Possibly you meant 'The King's Own Scottish Borderers.', aka. KOSBIs.'?

Both the regiment and the locomotive were called "The Kings Own Royal Border Regiment." not to be confused with "The Kings Own Scottish Borders" 

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Ah, you get them too of course.    I had one of Doncaster to deal with for Mr Irwell the other day, makes a nice change from the Western ones he has been bombarding me with in recent weeks.  And at least I managed to give Chris just about every bit of relevant detail except the lot numbers for the (BR build/converted) vehicles passing Doncaster North Signal Box.

 

As far as  your descriptive 'Kernow's' was concerned you were mostly correct - both the superb D6XX and the equally superb Bulleid diesel were models commissioned from Chinese factories by the Kernow Model Centres and sold under their label.  The J70 was commissioned by Model Rail magazine (from Rapido Trains) and is distributed on their behalf by Kernow.

As usual, thanks Mike,

 

There's an interesting comment or two from Steve Flint in the latest RM about the changing face of 'manufacturing'. 

 

There are also a couple of letters which might refer to me (in part) with regard to how our great hobby should/could be enjoyed.

 

I wish folk would actually read what is actually written. A principal point in my piece in the RM earlier this year was with regard to folk 'copying' what they see in magazines (or any other media). 'Copying' is fine if what's presented is correct and accurate. In the latest issue of RM, in Paul Bason's piece, there's a perfect example of what I was being 'critical' of. A loco displaying no headlamp(s), arriving at a station platform where it would be difficult to open carriage doors (if they did open) because the platform wall is way too tall and, just for good measure, no glazing in the loco's spectacle plate! In my researches for building LB, the tallest height for a platform I've discovered is just (a tiny, tiny bit) above halfway on the face of a loco or carriage's buffer. Platforms are always lower than a loco's footplate (unless it's a Terrier?) or a carriage's solebar. 

 

I don't have the slightest problem with folk pleasing themselves as to how they enjoy their hobby. But, if they're writing in magazines or via any other media, then surely they should get things right? Or, am I completely out of step with reality, and it doesn't matter? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.   

[MJI]

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Clive,

 

Now, a further question, and one from your era.

 

 

Do you or anyone else know exactly where this is, please? 

 

All that's on the print is 'Durham 1978'. It could well be the only named Class 46, but where is it in the Durham area? Relly Mill, or further away? It looks like some tracks have been removed.

 

As for the working, are these HAA hoppers?

 

Many thanks in anticipation. 

 

46,026 has/had deeper name plates and a single large headcode box. That is a 45,0 as there is no ETH cable.

 

 

[Porcy Mane]

5 hours ago, MarkC said:

Yes, that's Relly Mill.

 

It should really be "Relley" but locally known as Stonebridge. They even named the local pub after it. Relly Mill as a name for ther general area only came into use over the last fifty years or so as it was the name of one of five signal boxes within a few hundred yards of each other.

 

Stonebridge was also the home the well known Durham railway characters (or should that be caricatures?) of Faith, Hope & Charity. Any rumours that Charity looked very similar to the local stationmaster were purely coincidental.

 

 

Relly Mill Box is over the rear of the train in this North looking view.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/irishswissernie/39577594795/in/photolist-23ikw54-pcuQx7-26YSTBT-23ikw8F-23ikvWZ-23ikwcD-eaAAVA-8Ysr4Z-fTxL3b-nQTPNd-F1o1wE-GtuKrL-2b4JTXo-ScrfEu-gjMekz-jeXnEC-24SrwhP-jeYKGb-hX9kKd-FVPARK-oJGVCS-jeYJ8u-gkLcHF-dygs9a-23N3GvG-9oHqJi-i2GJq4-eZoE5F-23UAWCa-21Uwju9-gjR8XJ-gjM8fN-G4DF2t-T5tiLE-fTyHjA-51xTeJ-9HaXJ3-az7kqy-5ZSRcx-9H86Kp-GCnKH3-FnwPpM-w6ZCRp-FdrmV7-Qek1PQ-A6Dyo7-Qeojb7-xRwZKM-FdC7VF-Rk8RX6

 

The Deltic is running on the ECML and will be passing Bridge House SB on its left after a few hundred yards but not before passing the elevated Deernes Valley SB on the second mans side. ECML aficionados will know that the the Deltic is running on the "new" 1870's mainline the old mainline being some 3.5 miles due east.

 

Another John Boyes view looking south from the same bridge with the ECML out of shot to the left.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/irishswissernie/39577594775/in/photolist-23ikw4H-cUb7zN-hvxc4e-21RbgJ7-23ikw54-pcuQx7-26YSTBT-23ikw8F-23ikvWZ-23ikwcD-eaAAVA-8Ysr4Z-fTxL3b-nQTPNd-F1o1wE-GtuKrL-2b4JTXo-ScrfEu-gjMekz-jeXnEC-24SrwhP-jeYKGb-hX9kKd-FVPARK-oJGVCS-jeYJ8u-gkLcHF-dygs9a-23N3GvG-9oHqJi-i2GJq4-eZoE5F-23UAWCa-21Uwju9-gjR8XJ-gjM8fN-G4DF2t-T5tiLE-fTyHjA-51xTeJ-9HaXJ3-az7kqy-5ZSRcx-9H86Kp-GCnKH3-FnwPpM-w6ZCRp-FdrmV7-Qek1PQ-A6Dyo7

 

The location was such a well known spot for railway photographers and photography that when the Stonebridge was replaced by a more modern structure the west abutment of the old bridge was converted into a viewing platform complete with ornamental seat.

 

 

Porcy's Orthogonal Fact: Number 12,627.

 

A couple of miles south of Stonebridge on the ECML lies the community of Metal Bridge. It to had a pub called after the local bridge, The Metal Bridge Inn.  (Until the fashion craze of pub renamings in the 1990's. ) Its beer garden fronted onto the ECML. Oh! it also had a miniature railway running round it.

 

P

[MJI]

4 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

OK I hold my hands up and admit I am wrong.

 

I was using the 1975 ABC.....I turned the page over and there is a list of Class 45s "still to be classified as 45/0 or 45/1".

 

Can I add these other possibilities

D49 The Manchester Regiment,  45 039

D54 The Royal Pioneer Corps, 45 023

 

There were two other named locos but their names were on a double row and the name plate looks too naorrow for a double row name.

D50 Kings Shropshire Light Infantry, 45 040

D58 The Kings Own Royal Boarder Regiment, 45 043

 

Manchester Regiment got converted to flush front when I saw it, out with file and knife and yellow paint!

 

None of my Peaks are now double box, either single box or flush nosed.

[MarkC]

Following on from Porcy's excellent post regarding Relly Mill, if a steam special is coming through, that viewing platform can get pretty busy!

 

And as he rightly says, the 'old' main line is a few miles east :)

[Tony Wright]

One of the things I'm conscious of in photographing Little Bytham's progress is the fact there are relatively few pictures I take in the confines of the station. There is a good reason for this, and it's partly to do with that phrase 'confines of the station'. 

 

Though my camera is very powerful, and the lens on its front exceptionally good with regard to depth of field, the whole ensemble is big. Very big! I cannot get on with compact or 'bridge' cameras, so I live with the consequence of being restricted to some extent in my picture-taking. 

 

However, I've had a go this afternoon, judiciously squeezing the camera into places it doesn't want to go (and 'murdering' a passenger and breaking off a telegraph pole, all at the same time!), and I present the results below. I think they're worthy of further experiment..............

 

 

With the camera on the station platform itself, one has to assume that the photographer is either a basketball player or is standing on some steps! Class A1 60136 ALCAZAR belts southwards on an Up express as Geoff West's little porters take no notice. I built the loco from a DJH kit and Tony Geary built the carriages. 

 

 

The porter (or it could be the stationmaster) still takes little notice as another A1, 60146 PEREGRINE goes through the station at high speed with a morning Hull/York-Kings Cross express, complete with a bogie CCT as the first vehicle. I built the loco from a Crownline kit and the CCT from a Chivers' kit. Geoff Haynes painted the loco (Ian Rathbone painted the other Pacifics in this selection). Ian Wilson's footbridge looks well. In the distance 'I'm' about to take a going-away shot!

 

A northbound express this time, as York-based A2/2 60501 COCK O' THE NORTH heads for home. I built this loco as the 'prototype' for the DJH kit. Bob Dawson's lovely station buildings deserve to be photographed in close-up. 

 

 

Fast freights this time pass at the south end (presenting 'me' with a dilemma of exactly what to photograph). I built both the locos - A2 60533 HAPPY KNIGHT and A2/3 60500 EDWARD THOMPSON - from Crownline kits. The vans are mainly the work of Rob Kinsey. 

 

 

Archie Brown's new K3 runs-in on a stopper before it heads home to Scotland. Actually, unlike with the Pacifics, smaller Scottish-allocated locos of LNER origin would probably be shopped at Cowlairs and never come this far south. 

 

The background is provided by Ian Wilson's prototype Prototype Models Little Bytham goods shed. Ian was proprietor/designer of Prototype Models and that goods shed is the very first one! 

 

See what I mean about platform heights. 

 

Comments, criticisms, observations, suggestions etc, etc, please.............................

 

 

 

 

[Chamby]

I like the platform shots, Tony.  They are easy to relate to, as I guess we’ve all spent a lot of time standing in a similar place.

 

One suggestion for improvement, and its about the photography rather than the modelling per se.  It relates to the view under the bridge arches... do you put some white card there to hide the curves & gubbins beyond the scenic section?  Painting the card, even fuzzily, to represent something beyond, would be relatively straightforward and help create the perception of far distance.

 

A similar comment might presumably apply to views in the other direction, under the girder bridge?

 

Phil.

[Barry Ten]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

 

Comments, criticisms, observations, suggestions etc, etc, please.............................

 

Have you experimented with shooting into a mirror, Tony? It can enable some shots to be captured which would be physically impossible otherwise. The mirror needs to be free of surface marks and fingerprints but doesn't need to be front-silvered so any household mirror would do provided you can position it on the layout. You need some means of supporting both the camera and the mirror for the usual duration of the shot. Once the shot is taken, the image can be cropped and flipped. You might not be able to fit a mirror between the platforms but at the very least you might be able to get some angles which are close to a 1/76th viewpoint on the platform itself? The shots are in any case very evocative as they stand.

 

Al

 

 

[St Enodoc]

11 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

As usual, thanks Mike,

 

There's an interesting comment or two from Steve Flint in the latest RM about the changing face of 'manufacturing'. 

 

There are also a couple of letters which might refer to me (in part) with regard to how our great hobby should/could be enjoyed.

 

I wish folk would actually read what is actually written. A principal point in my piece in the RM earlier this year was with regard to folk 'copying' what they see in magazines (or any other media). 'Copying' is fine if what's presented is correct and accurate. In the latest issue of RM, in Paul Bason's piece, there's a perfect example of what I was being 'critical' of. A loco displaying no headlamp(s), arriving at a station platform where it would be difficult to open carriage doors (if they did open) because the platform wall is way too tall and, just for good measure, no glazing in the loco's spectacle plate! In my researches for building LB, the tallest height for a platform I've discovered is just (a tiny, tiny bit) above halfway on the face of a loco or carriage's buffer. Platforms are always lower than a loco's footplate (unless it's a Terrier?) or a carriage's solebar. 

 

I don't have the slightest problem with folk pleasing themselves as to how they enjoy their hobby. But, if they're writing in magazines or via any other media, then surely they should get things right? Or, am I completely out of step with reality, and it doesn't matter? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.   

There was a layout featured in a recent magazine (no names, no pack drill - but the photos were by a certain T Wright) which I rather liked until I saw a photo of the signal box nameboard - with both upper- and lower-case letters. I gave up and turned to the next article.

[grahame]

4 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I saw a photo of the signal box nameboard - with both upper- and lower-case letters. I gave up and turned to the next article.

 

Really? You mean like this?  

 

 

I couldn't find any suitable lower case letters for my model so I had to use all upper case. And I only put them on the side facing the viewing position. Perhaps one day I'll correct it and add the rest.

 

 

G

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, grahame said:

 

Really? You mean like this?  

 

I couldn't find any suitable lower case letters for my model so I had to use all upper case. And I only put them on the side facing the viewing position. Perhaps one day I'll correct it and add the rest.

 

G

Very good! As I think you guessed, but for the avoidance of doubt, I meant a steam-age nameboard that should have been all upper-case but wasn't. You have a good reason for what you've done - they didn't. I'll stop there, as if I say more I'll reveal too much and that would be unfair.

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, Chamby said:

I like the platform shots, Tony.  They are easy to relate to, as I guess we’ve all spent a lot of time standing in a similar place.

 

One suggestion for improvement, and its about the photography rather than the modelling per se.  It relates to the view under the bridge arches... do you put some white card there to hide the curves & gubbins beyond the scenic section?  Painting the card, even fuzzily, to represent something beyond, would be relatively straightforward and help create the perception of far distance.

 

A similar comment might presumably apply to views in the other direction, under the girder bridge?

 

Phil.

Good morning Phil,

 

The area beyond the bridge arches is Photoshopped out. It's a compromise I have to accept, because about nine inches beyond the bridge (and normally out of sight), the four main lines go around a right angle curve to the left. That looks worse than just taking them out off-white. I could use a darker colour, but that's just as unnatural. The limitations of a model railway I suppose.

 

What I won't do is to put an 'artificial' scene beyond the arches - carrying on the tracks straight/cloning the cutting/etc.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[KNP]

Those platform shots look really great, they are my favorite type of pictures as they replicate how we would see them - eye level (or thereabouts!).

I have found that my compact (Panasonic TZ100) is a very powerful little camera and when linked to my mobile phone I can control every setting on it and need to be nowhere the camera to see/take a picture.

Great for putting the camera where you can't get to it to operate.

 

[Tony Wright]

6 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

There was a layout featured in a recent magazine (no names, no pack drill - but the photos were by a certain T Wright) which I rather liked until I saw a photo of the signal box nameboard - with both upper- and lower-case letters. I gave up and turned to the next article.

I pointed out to the layout builder the error of the signal box name font when I was taking the pictures, John.

 

He honestly didn't know. Lack of observation? Lack of prototype research? Not bothered? Who knows? 

 

Without being defensive, what should I have done? I was commissioned to photograph the layout, and I did. Is that where my responsibility ends? My brief, as always, was to provide photographs of good enough quality to publish without degradation. I think I satisfied that brief. Should I have not taking any views with the signal box in them? That would have been rather limiting to say the least. 

 

I probably am out of step now with the way the hobby is 'portrayed' in the printed media nowadays (with the exception of the MRJ). 

 

A glance at two current mainstream magazines just now reveal layouts which would be just about impossible to work if they were real, bridges which would collapse if a train ever went over them, the old chestnut of no lamps, gross couplings protruding from beneath loco buffer beams, curves on visible running lines which wouldn't even be tolerated on a dockyard, non-working semaphores (or if they work, it must be by magic!), trackwork so wonky that even the crudest wheelsets would derail, ballast with lumps larger than an obese bloke's torso, more platforms so high that all carriage doors would have to open inwards (in my pictures!), 'mining subsidence' where the nearest pit is 100 miles away and numerous other examples where 'realism' is completely compromised. 

 

Yet, there are some real gems in there as well. 

 

Perhaps it always was the case.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

35 minutes ago, KNP said:

Those platform shots look really great, they are my favorite type of pictures as they replicate how we would see them - eye level (or thereabouts!).

I have found that my compact (Panasonic TZ100) is a very powerful little camera and when linked to my mobile phone I can control every setting on it and need to be nowhere the camera to see/take a picture.

Great for putting the camera where you can't get to it to operate.

 

Kevin,

 

Many thanks. However, you must remember to whom you're talking. 

 

Tony Wright being able to use a compact camera and a mobile phone? I think not.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[CCGWR]

Looks Good to me Tony, I especially like the shot of the K3

 

Regards Connor

[grahame]

32 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

A glance at two current mainstream magazines just now reveal layouts which would be just about impossible to work if they were real, bridges which would collapse if a train ever went over them, the old chestnut of no lamps, gross couplings protruding from beneath loco buffer beams, curves on visible running lines which wouldn't even be tolerated on a dockyard, non-working semaphores (or if they work, it must be by magic!), trackwork so wonky that even the crudest wheelsets would derail, ballast with lumps larger than an obese bloke's torso, more platforms so high that all carriage doors would have to open inwards (in my pictures!), 'mining subsidence' where the nearest pit is 100 miles away and numerous other examples where 'realism' is completely compromised. 

 

 

I have to admit that I do notice 'errors' on layouts that irk me. They are probably less about railway practice, as I'm still learning and lacking knowledge, but practical things like the doors on carriages not being able to open at platforms. Also things that are unfeasible, impossible or very unlikely to occur in real life. Such as incredibly narrow roads with buses on them that would never get around the hairpin bends modelled. And houses with no access to them.

 

G.

[Mallard60022]

I  notice errors on layouts, but then I remember all the complete dip stick errors I have made on mine (in innocence mostly, as I do like to research things these days). 

Phil