Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

Al.......interesting weathering effect there.......

 

Three different techniques used here.........

IMG_1262.PNG.0f9a3fbd756ba11bfcbf8cc741a84741.PNG

 

I now use Modelmates rusting solution  ( there are other makes but I've not used them) which I now swear by.

 

They give a surface just like what you have been doing but with the advantage that it's water soluble so if you don't like the finish you can start again.

 

Once happy spray over the top with Citadel protective coating.

  • Like 6
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 25/11/2019 at 23:10, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi All

 

Can I ask the collected wisdom of LNER carriage knowledge on here a question? Well in might be a few questions.

 

On Andy's (Thegreenhowards) Gresley Junction layout thread we have been discussing the one of Restaurant  Kitchen Buffet that Gilbert says was in the Kings Cross to Cleethropes train. Apparently it the only one of its type on the GNR end of the ECML. Andy has found out some information about it and two other RKB which had been rebuilt form diagram 16 Resturant Kitchen Thirds. Their numbers were E9063E, E9064E and E9065E (Hugh Longworth's tome states that E9095 was not renumbered but ran as M1225E). Does anyone have any information, photos or know of photos of them after being rebuilt, we have between us the diagram 16 before rebuilding. 

 

In trying to work out which unique LNER buffet car Gilbert was on about I came across the Eastleigh rebuilds of diagram 11 Restaurant Kitchen First and diagram 95 Sleeper Thirds into Cafeteria Cars. There appears to be two body styles, one with just large windows as in the Harris book and one with small windows between the large windows as per Robert's photo. I have found a photo showing the corridor side of the first style of coach but not one of style in Robert's photo. Can anyone help? There is a very nice photo of the second style of coach on David Ford's black and white photo collection.

 

Next request is about the prototype Cafeteria Cars, E13369E which was rebuilt from an Open Third diagram 186, does anyone have anything on this coach? Oh look what I found while typing this post.

One of the three RKB conversions was in the Harwich-Liverpool train in the late 1950s and there is a published photo of it showing the kitchen side in the train approaching Sheffield behind a Britannia. I can't remember which book it's in but it was a paperback.  Notably, the kitchen side had only two full depth windows towards the right-hand end and a large section of panelling (presumably behind the buffet counter) and the kitchen windows towards the left hand end.

 

The one reported in the South Yorkshireman set was E1225E per the Railway Observer in May 1954. There is a Neil Sprinks photo of the train with an RKB which fits with the date the RO gave. It's not a good photo of the carriage but you can see what it is. The Cleethorpes one appears in DVD footage and possibly also photos, as does one in a Cromer train. There is another photo of one in the Harwich-Liverpool which shows the corridor side.

 

Unfortunately, none of the photos is a close-up and I have never found a diagram for the conversion.

 

I don't think the RKB was in the South Yorkshireman for very long, possibly only Spring 1954. The Summer 1954 carriage workings listed one in the train but photos from that Summer show a Gresley Restaurant First.

 

So far as I am aware, 9065 was the number allocated to what had been 1225 but it was not renumbered. However, in the absence of primary sources, this cannot be confirmed.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 25/11/2019 at 20:26, Jesse Sim said:

Good afternoon running Little Bytham, my friends from the North, Dave and Christine, popped over to see me and to see LB, as well as Tony and Mo. It was also good to see Geoff West again, the pair of us sitting on the far side like school children receiving orders from Sir. It was a wonderful day, mates playing trains as Tony put it. 
 

It was also wonderful to speak to so many of you at Warley, I can’t wait till next time. 

F63E370D-AD77-4AFB-9977-F9A74AB24F78.jpeg

Over the years I have seen many photographs and watched many dvds of Little Bytham. Never in a million years would I have imagined that one day I would actually be in one of those photographs and even get to play trains for a while. Thank you so much Tony and Mo for the opportunity to visit and to you Jesse who made it possible. It was a day  Christine and I won't forget. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, APOLLO said:

I also print my own from a spreadsheet I designed years ago. Useful for all sorts of signs, station & signal box name boards etc. Not sure if my spreadsheet will post, I'll try. Go to general signs tab, cell A47 & input your number.

 

SNMBD Excel Worksheet.xls 57 kB · 18 downloads

 

Edited to add - yes it seems to work. You need to put your number in each cell on line 47. At the side are cabside numbers also. print on the thinnest & cheapest paper, cut out and go round the edges with a black marker as Tony says, and very lightly glue on. A fine wash of dirty turps is then all you need.

 

This is my home made K3 (before Bachmann released theirs)  A cut down V2 body, home made dome on an old V1 un motored chassis. She is powered by a Hornby B17 tender drive with a Bachmann V2 tender top. Surprisingly she runs well. Cab and smoke box numbers via my spreadsheet - cab lining is original Bachmann (I used a black V2 body & tender).

 

Perhaps the 6 is wrong - I don't notice !!

 

DSCF8319rszd.jpg.92fcfa2e377fb2bc469bb9f004161270.jpg

 

 

DSCF8318.JPG.90afbf19db58a831b88f933e0ef6ce48.JPG

 

Brit 15

 

 

 

Actually, the '6s' and '9s' might be right (if wrong, if you see what I mean), though the '1s' with a 'cap' are definitely wrong for any period.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Windy2 said:

Over the years I have seen many photographs and watched many dvds of Little Bytham. Never in a million years would I have imagined that one day I would actually be in one of those photographs and even get to play trains for a while. Thank you so much Tony and Mo for the opportunity to visit and to you Jesse who made it possible. It was a day  Christine and I won't forget. 

Our pleasure Dave,

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

As far as I know he hasn't found a buyer to take over the materials, tools, etc. side of the business, as I believe he wishes to concentrate on his 7mm kits.

 

He is also recovering from surgery at present (as told to me by another trader) so has had to pull out of some exhibitions.

 

When talking to Phil some months ago he told me that the workload (in particular due to attending exhibitions) was such that it had become a choice between the Model Railway (i.e. Phil) or Quilting (i.e. Jo) side of the business.

We lost :cray_mini:

 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

(Snip) Expresses/excursions lamped-up as pick-up goods trains? Or a local lamped-up as a light engine? Or, no lamps at all! Which, I wonder, is worse? Though the photographs are good, doesn't the photographer know these things? Does he not know they're so wrong? If he did know, why not mention it? Then take 'correct' pictures. 

(snip)

Regards,

 

Tony. 


Is it the photographers job/duty/responsibility to address those or similar issues though?
It’s reasonable for them to ensure stock is on the track, and cleaned of dust etc, but personally I’m not convinced of the argument for ‘correcting’ things like lamps or train formations for example. They may not be equipped with such technical knowledge anyway. I can see a valid case where correcting details has merit if the article deals with a specific subject, eg lamps or train formations, but not if they’re recording a layout illustration article. With the layout piece the photographers are showcasing what the modeller has produced for good or bad, rather than a stylised, improved version of their work.

Edited by PMP
  • Like 4
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Which leads me on (in a somewhat tangential manner) to the current issue of Railway Modeller (which, as usual, is a damn good read). In it, in the 'Railway of the Month' feature I find I'm mentioned. Apparently there's a 'Tony Wright school of accuracy' (though I taught for at least half of my 40+ year professional career, I never had my own school!). At first I was rather flattered (in a pompous sort of way?), assuming that it was a 'compliment', until I noted the lamps on the locos in the pictures. In almost every picture, whoever put the lamps on the locos belongs to the 'Tony Wright school of inaccuracy'! Expresses/excursions lamped-up as pick-up goods trains? Or a local lamped-up as a light engine? Or, no lamps at all! Which, I wonder, is worse? Though the photographs are good, doesn't the photographer know these things? Does he not know they're so wrong? If he did know, why not mention it? Then take 'correct' pictures. 

What is the Railway of the Month, Tony. If it's an S&D layout, the S&D had their own locomotive lamp code which lasted, I believe, to the end in 1966.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 hours ago, PMP said:


Is it the photographers job/duty/responsibility to address those or similar issues though?

 

In my experience (admittedly a few years ago) once an article has been submitted to the model railway press it can be subject to extensive revision by the publisher to fit the available space and pagination, without the author having further sight of the work until publication.  It is not unknown for photo captions to be transposed in error, and content emphasis to be inadvertently changed.

 

The editors role should be to ensure that the published content meets the standards required by the publication.  So something like incorrect lamping has to be present on the original model, it’s image captured by the photographer, these subsequently being screened/approved by the editor for publication... 

 

Good practice would be for the article’s author to have sight of the finished copy after the editor and page setters have done their job, but this doesn’t always happen.  

 

So so in my view, ultimate responsibility for inaccuracies being published lies jointly with the submitting modeller/author and the editor, rather than the photographer.

 

 

 

Edited by Chamby
Emphasis of a point.
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, PMP said:


Is it the photographers job/duty/responsibility to address those or similar issues though?
It’s reasonable for them to ensure stock is on the track, and cleaned of dust etc, but personally I’m not convinced of the argument for ‘correcting’ things like lamps or train formations for example. They may not be equipped with such technical knowledge anyway. I can see a valid case where correcting details has merit if the article deals with a specific subject, eg lamps or train formations, but not if they’re recording a layout illustration article. With the layout piece the photographers are showcasing what the modeller has produced for good or bad, rather than a stylised, improved version of their work.

If I'm taking pictures, I see it as my job, Paul.

 

I recently photographed a layout where a passenger train was running with no brake van/guard's compartment. 'If I put that on, it won't fit into the fiddle yard' was the response to my observation. I took the shot, but cropped off the rear of the train! 

 

With regard to the incorrect lamps in the pictures in question, I don't think I'd have mentioned it had I not been personally cited in the article, with a comment about 'accuracy'. I assume the photographer knows about such things, though his own layout is devoid of such niceties, so, perhaps, not. 

 

Craig Tiley (a brilliant photographer, writer, artist and modeller - one of RM's staff) recently wrote an article in the magazine explaining all about the various headlamp codes, so shouldn't some effort have been made (especially as it's Railway of the Month) to at least get the lamps' aspects right? 

 

I agree entirely that the photographs should show a layout 'as it is', warts and all, but the lamps in question appear to be just fixed on the lamp brackets, and are capable of being moved (the angle of one suggests this). Surely it wouldn't have taken too long remove one lamp from one loco and add it to another, for each picture (as appropriate), especially as one is fixed to the tender of a loco hauling a brake van! The 'van does have a tail lamp as well. 

 

As for an 'improved' version of what a modeller has produced, isn't that something to aspire to? Especially with regard to something as easy as displaying the correct lamps.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Chamby said:

 

In my experience (admittedly a few years ago) once an article has been submitted to the model railway press it can be subject to extensive revision by the publisher to fit the available space and pagination, without the author having further sight of the work until publication.  It is not unknown for photo captions to be transposed in error, and content emphasis to be inadvertently changed.

 

The editors role should be to ensure that the published content meets the standards required by the publication.  So something like incorrect lamping has to be present on the original model, it’s image captured by the photographer, these subsequently being screened/approved by the editor for publication... 

 

Good practice would be for the article’s author to have sight of the finished copy after the editor and page setters have done their job, but this doesn’t always happen.  

 

So so in my view, ultimate responsibility for inaccuracies being published lies jointly with the submitting modeller/author and the editor, rather than the photographer.

 

 

 

Good morning Phil,

 

Interestingly, I recently pointed out an error in a picture (taken by the same photographer) of a layout in the RM where a splitting signal had both boards 'off' (would a train divide; one half taking one route and the other half the other?!), and my letter was published. 

 

Steve Flint and his most-able team were really cross for not spotting it (and, like all good journalists, admitted it), and the layout's builder/owner hadn't seen the picture beforehand (or at least not the page proof). Either I wouldn't have taken the shot in the first place, or asked for the signal's aspect (they were non-working) to be altered - the arms were fixed with Blu-Tak. 

 

Are my recent observations those of a zealot? I wonder. At a time when the profile of the hobby has been raised in all forms of the media, are we (the generic 'we') not in danger of losing our ability to 'observe the prototype'? Many of the layouts featured of late show no observation of the real thing at all - in fact quite the opposite - yet they went on to become 'winners'. One could argue that the aims and objectives were totally different from what us 'modellers' might aspire to, but if 'inaccuracies' become more and more the norm, then how is the next generation of modellers (without which, the hobby has no future!) going to understand and achieve 'realism'? 

 

I see it as a responsibility.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
13 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Are my recent observations those of a zealot? I wonder.

 

No, they are the observations of someone who has always gone out of his way to help other modellers improve their efforts and achieve a high standard; also you are always responsive to any constructive criticism others level at your own modelling and will invariably do your level best to correct them.

 

Dave

  • Like 2
  • Agree 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Phil,

 

Interestingly, I recently pointed out an error in a picture (taken by the same photographer) of a layout in the RM where a splitting signal had both boards 'off' (would a train divide; one half taking one route and the other half the other?!), and my letter was published. 

 

Steve Flint and his most-able team were really cross for not spotting it (and, like all good journalists, admitted it), and the layout's builder/owner hadn't seen the picture beforehand (or at least not the page proof). Either I wouldn't have taken the shot in the first place, or asked for the signal's aspect (they were non-working) to be altered - the arms were fixed with Blu-Tak. 

 

Are my recent observations those of a zealot? I wonder. At a time when the profile of the hobby has been raised in all forms of the media, are we (the generic 'we') not in danger of losing our ability to 'observe the prototype'? Many of the layouts featured of late show no observation of the real thing at all - in fact quite the opposite - yet they went on to become 'winners'. One could argue that the aims and objectives were totally different from what us 'modellers' might aspire to, but if 'inaccuracies' become more and more the norm, then how is the next generation of modellers (without which, the hobby has no future!) going to understand and achieve 'realism'? 

 

I see it as a responsibility.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony,

 

I know that, for you and many of like mind, the provision of correct lamps is a major issue. However, there are also many, including me, who simply do not see it as such.

 

What offends my own eye is the failure to provide  appropriate freight stock. It's amazing how many modellers, who go to great lengths to ensure that their passenger train make-ups accord with the individual prototype trains, (and provide correct lamps on their locos), are content to compile their freight trains with whatever wagons come readily to hand, regardless of correct period and location.

 

I do not condemn them for doing so, nor do I assume that they do it out of ignorance; it is merely an expression of their personal interests and priorities. Those of us of a certain age are all too aware that life is finite, and that the chances of achieving our modelling ambitions are slim, without becoming obsessed with detail which is not important to us.

 

I recall my days as a trainspotter - which so many of us are trying to recreate in miniature - and we paid very little attention to the loco lamp code. We could see what type of train was approaching; we didn't need to refer to the lamp codes in the front of our ABCs !

 

So, tolerance is all  - if the modeller has priorities other than loco lamps that's his business. There are far worse anomalies published in the model press which get passed over without the slightest comment.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited by cctransuk
  • Like 3
  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Brinkly said:

Going back to weathering techniques, I repainted this trio of Bachmann 16 ton mineral wagons using Ammo by Mig products. 

 

This was my first go at weathering, however, I think the results are quite convincing so far. I need to finish weathering the chassis and look at adding powders but they are coming along. 

 

IMG_2741.jpg.f61f96961a26ee927fa5f7035925ede7.jpg.adf8aa38c932616cf340568d0a72c670.jpg

IMG_2742.jpg.e10dce607f57a2d8f8a73a66ab7c18df.jpg.066f5ef533ee11b61cc1cae8ba9d51ac.jpg

IMG_2743.jpg.db901e38cd7b9a368f5ad11fb331c19c.jpg.2dccd701e2b956bc02d3d0dfb56746bb.jpg

 

 

 

 

Best wishes

 

Nick

Great stuff, Nick,

 

Thanks for showing us..............

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Tony,

 

I know that, for you and many of like mind, the provision of correct lamps is a major issue. However, there are also many, including me, who simply do not see it as such.

 

What offends my own eye is the failure to provide  appropriate freight stock. It's amazing how many modellers, who go to great lengths to ensure that their passenger train make-ups accord with the individual prototype trains, (and provide correct lamps on their locos), are content to compile their freight trains with whatever wagons come readily to hand, regardless of correct period and location.

 

I do not condemn them for doing so, nor do I assume that they do it out of ignorance; it is merely an expression of their personal interests and priorities. Those of us of a certain age are all too aware that life is finite, and that the chances of achieving our modelling ambitions are slim, without becoming obsessed with detail which is not important to us.

 

I recall my days as a trainspotter - which so many of us are trying to recreate in miniature - and we paid very little attention to the loco lamp code. We could see what type of train was approaching; we didn't need to refer to the lamp codes in the front of our ABCs !

 

So, tolerance is all  - if the modeller has priorities other than loco lamps that's his business. There are far worse anomalies published in the model press which get passed over without the slightest comment.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

I'm in total agreement, John, 

 

Except in your assumption that all modellers are male.

 

I also agree about our trainspotting 'observations'. Of course I paid the lamps no heed, then. However, if I'm using prototype pictures to make-up my trains  - whatever their status - (and shouldn't we all?), then there are the lamps. For all to see. 

 

I just go back again to my name being mentioned in the article in question, with regard to 'accuracy'. And, 'accurate' lamps are high on my list of priorities.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
22 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

In almost every picture, whoever put the lamps on the locos belongs to the 'Tony Wright school of inaccuracy'! Expresses/excursions lamped-up as pick-up goods trains? Or a local lamped-up as a light engine? Or, no lamps at all! Which, I wonder, is worse?

 

Running a Local Passenger lamped up as a Light Engine was prototypical on some Branches of the GWR / BR(W) . Confirmed by my Desktop Picture of BR(W) 1453 leaving Aylesbury Town on a Princes Risborough Passenger Train.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, Clem said:

What is the Railway of the Month, Tony. If it's an S&D layout, the S&D had their own locomotive lamp code which lasted, I believe, to the end in 1966.

 

Hello Clem

 

The 'normal' Class A express lamp code was carried occasionally, particularly if the Pines Express headboard or some other 'special headboard' was carried.

 

Brian

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Pannier Tank said:

 

Running a Local Passenger lamped up as a Light Engine was prototypical on some Branches of the GWR / BR(W) . Confirmed by my Desktop Picture of BR(W) 1453 leaving Aylesbury Town on a Princes Risborough Passenger Train.

Thanks for that, but was that the norm? 

 

I've found prototype shots which show anomalous lamps (normally within station limits), and one shot with no lamp at all! However, talking with professional signalmen (yes, I'm afraid, all men) I've been told that if a train carries incorrect lamps (or no lamps at all), then it should be stopped, and corrected. 

 

I've just commented in BRILL on some pictures taken at Durham in 1960, where, in one of them, a V3 is running light engine in reverse, yet carries its 'rear lamp' above the drawhook - the position for a light engine running forwards. It's probably involved in a shunting move (within station limits), and, as long as it carries a lamp at both ends, the signalman lets it be. That certainly used to be the case during my observations at Chester where (usually) ex-GWR locos would reverse on the triangle, and the three signal boxes controlling the movement allowed the locos to change direction, without the fireman altering the lamps on each leg. 

 

I go back again to observation of prototype pictures. In every shot I've used for reference in the building of Little Bytham and its trains, the locos carry the correct lamps, in the correct position for the job they're doing. 

 

Yes, there's no smoke on the model, it's also narrow gauge, no passengers ever get on or off the stoppers and it's only the trains which move. Trains with the correct lamps!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
32 minutes ago, Pannier Tank said:

 

Running a Local Passenger lamped up as a Light Engine was prototypical on some Branches of the GWR / BR(W) . Confirmed by my Desktop Picture of BR(W) 1453 leaving Aylesbury Town on a Princes Risborough Passenger Train.

 

The Cornish Riviera no less, on the St Ives branch....

 

(Photo from my collection, photographer unknown, passed to me by a friend. Will remove if necessary).

 

IMG_5867.jpeg.295bedfba50157153a041fd75abd12bd.jpeg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, TrevorP1 said:

 

The Cornish Riviera no less, on the St Ives branch....

 

(Photo from my collection, photographer unknown, passed to me by a friend. Will remove if necessary).

 

IMG_5867.jpeg.295bedfba50157153a041fd75abd12bd.jpeg

That, in my view is remarkable. Can we assume it's unusual?

 

Please, do not remove it. 

 

 

Returning to 'photographer responsibility', the shot below is the header picture for a layout article in the next issue of BRM. 

 

934464760_JohnEarth12.jpg.cec44fe95a0519c31737990b9e86c3ea.jpg

 

It's a first 'proper' layout, built by a guy returning to the hobby in retirement, and it's rather well done in my view. The loco carries the correct lamps (Class F) for an unfitted freight, but look at the front coupling. It's a common occurrence on a model where it's got twisted around the centre lamp bracket. I processed the shot (including cutting out all that footbridge lattice work!) and never noticed it, until I saw the page proof. It's been left as it is (does it detract too much?), but I really should have noticed this on taking the picture and re-shot it. 

 

The following shot is one I rejected, and re-took, but only after I'd wasted all that time in taking out the background! Why didn't I notice the problem straight away?

 

1402085054_13317FlyingScotsman.jpg.58b78ca1130078f52cf834ad0c578b07.jpg

 

It's obviously on LB, but look at the daft angles of the lamps! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point
  • Like 5
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

That, in my view is remarkable. Can we assume it's unusual?

 

I really must get on with some work today but I picked up the first book I could find with photos of the St Ives branch and there are not one but two photos showing incorrect head codes.

 

One is a six coach passenger train carrying 'light engine'. The other is another passenger train, this time carrying lamps for 'empty coaching stock' although admittedly the train in question has a significant proportion of empty coaches in preparation for an outbound working. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...