Wright writes.....

[Dunsignalling]

4 hours ago, bbishop said:

 

Wise words.  The impact of a broken crank axle was demonstrated when Bibby Line demolished much of Crewkerne station.  Amazing there were no casualties.  The Packets were all withdrawn from service and ultrasound testing(?) determined a number of axles were of flawed manufacture.  Meanwhile the Southern borrowed V2 locomotives.

 

Bill

Just to be a little less sensationalist, Bibby Line took out around half of the platform canopy. The station building survives intact to this day.

 

Not just V2s either, there were Black Fives and Britannias lent as well.

 

John

[micklner]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

A few thoughts on P2s and their crank axles.

 

They were the most powerful passenger steam locos in the country, hauling really heavy trains on difficult routes. 

 

To start those heavy trains, the drivers would have had to put huge amounts of power on to get them moving.

 

Under those conditions, any type of loco might have been slightly more prone to broken crank axles.

 

A heavy loco with 8 drivers is less likely to slip, which is how most locos get rid of excess power applied during starting. How many heavy trains did the P2s haul? How many crank axles broke? Maybe one or two more than you would expect compared to other classes but hardly a daily event. Did they ever cause an injury or major incident as a result of the problem? Not to my knowledge.

 

If you start to withdraw and condemn classes because of serious things that might go wrong, you would have nothing left!

 

It may even be the case that crank axles broke because of driver error, putting too much power on too quickly, rather than any fatal design flaw.

 

The very fact that the operating people were happy to use them and didn't want them to go away for rebuilding would suggest that they were not the dreadful failures that some like to make them out to be.

 

Five crank axles out a class of Six is hardly normal. A minor miracle that none went at speed. I cannot see how five drivers, would have made such a mistake !

A redesign would have been a obvious way of sorting out the problem. I doubt it actually  justified, a total rebuild however.

But how much technology actually existed in th late 30's /40's anyway to identify the actual problem anyway ?.

[t-b-g]

26 minutes ago, micklner said:

Five crank axles out a class of Six is hardly normal. A minor miracle that none went at speed. I cannot see how five drivers, would have made such a mistake !

A redesign would have been a obvious way of sorting out the problem. I doubt it actually  justified, a total rebuild however.

But how much technology actually existed in th late 30's /40's anyway to identify the actual problem anyway ?.

 

Who said it was normal?

 

No doubt they were flawed but they were still the most powerful steam passenger locomotives to run in this country and the operating people were sorry to seem them go.

 

If the design was so flawed, how come the sixth one didn't break? Or why did one breakage happen after 10 years of service, running identical trains compared to one that broke after 5 years? And when replaced, why didn't they break again? Factors like wear and tear, maintenance procedures and checks all form part of the picture. It is rare for a problem like a broken crank axle to be down to a single cause.

 

So yes, the design of the crank axle may not have been perfect for a loco with that amount of "grunt" but the very fact that one didn't break would lead me to believe that other factors were involved.

 

There is an interesting bit about the problems with the locos in the LNER RCTS Green book 6B for anybody that is interested.

 

[micklner]

4 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Who said it was normal?

 

No doubt they were flawed but they were still the most powerful steam passenger locomotives to run in this country and the operating people were sorry to seem them go.

 

If the design was so flawed, how come the sixth one didn't break? Or why did one breakage happen after 10 years of service, running identical trains compared to one that broke after 5 years? And when replaced, why didn't they break again? Factors like wear and tear, maintenance procedures and checks all form part of the picture. It is rare for a problem like a broken crank axle to be down to a single cause.

 

So yes, the design of the crank axle may not have been perfect for a loco with that amount of "grunt" but the very fact that one didn't break would lead me to believe that other factors were involved.

 

There is an interesting bit about the problems with the locos in the LNER RCTS Green book 6B for anybody that is interested.

 

"Normal' is a expression in this sentence ,not a direct quote of anybody !!

 

Only two locos existed for ten years the others 8 at a maximium, obviously they would have not been i nconstant use in that time scale.

 

Why the 6th loco crank didnt break ?  = who knows !! . I have never seen a list of what locos actually  failed,  it might have been 5 failures on one loco ? who knows again ? hopefully a list exists somewhere. I do not have the relevant RCTS volume.

 

A obvious factor is a poorly designed Pony truck as said below.

 

https://www.lner.info/locos/P/p2.php

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by micklner

[t-b-g]

3 minutes ago, micklner said:

"Normal' is a expression in this sentence ,not a direct quote of anybody !!

Only two locos existed for ten years the others 8 at a maximium, obviously they would have not been i constant use in that time scale.

Why the 6 th loco crank didnt break = who knows !! . I have never seen a list of what locos actually  failed,  it might have been 5 failures on one loco ? who knows again ?

A obvious factor is a poorly designed Pony truck as said below.

 

https://www.lner.info/locos/P/p2.php

 

 

 

 

 

 

The RCTS book does list some of the failures and give dates and details of what the locos were doing at the time the axles failed. It seems other locos had damage caused to crank axles by excessive wear without them actually breaking.

 

The pony truck problems will have had a "knock on" effect on wear elsewhere on the loco, no doubt about that.

 

At least the A1/Prince of Wales group have identified and sorted the problems for the new build. I for one am very excited to see what a "Super P2" can do. We have better track nowadays and with the slightly smaller cylinders and higher boiler pressure, plus redesigned components where problems existed before, it should be a real beast!

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, t-b-g said:

A few thoughts on P2s and their crank axles.

 

They were the most powerful passenger steam locos in the country, hauling really heavy trains on difficult routes. 

 

To start those heavy trains, the drivers would have had to put huge amounts of power on to get them moving.

 

Under those conditions, any type of loco might have been slightly more prone to broken crank axles.

 

A heavy loco with 8 drivers is less likely to slip, which is how most locos get rid of excess power applied during starting. How many heavy trains did the P2s haul? How many crank axles broke? Maybe one or two more than you would expect compared to other classes but hardly a daily event. Did they ever cause an injury or major incident as a result of the problem? Not to my knowledge.

 

If you start to withdraw and condemn classes because of serious things that might go wrong, you would have nothing left!

 

It may even be the case that crank axles broke because of driver error, putting too much power on too quickly, rather than any fatal design flaw.

 

The very fact that the operating people were happy to use them and didn't want them to go away for rebuilding would suggest that they were not the dreadful failures that some like to make them out to be.

 

A sound appraisal, Tony,

 

I must go through Geoff Lund's notes again, but there are several factors about the P2s which might not be entirely known by all.

 

They were, as you say, Britain's most powerful express passenger steam loco (before or since) and they were the only class capable of handling the heaviest loads over the difficult Aberdeen road. Once rebuilt as A2/2s, they were effectively 'useless' on the same line, and, indeed, because of their propensity to slip, were less-capable than an A3 or an A4. 

 

You probably remember Malcolm's comments about the rebuilds - 'A complete waste of money' I recall him saying. And that from a professional railwayman of the highest calibre, not some sentimental enthusiast. 

 

If it is five crank axles which broke (were they on different locos? If so, at least one survived intact), they only ever fractured at low speed on starting, when the maximum torque was applied. 

 

Much of the shopping of the six giants was done at Cowlairs. This was a great mistake in Geoff Lund's view. Without being disparaging to the Glasgow works, hitherto the largest loco worked on there would have been a Reid Atlantic. The general workmanship was poor, and, in Geoff's opinion the class should always have been shopped at Doncaster. 

 

What is hard to understand (at least to me) is that, during the dark days of the War, the six most-powerful locos in the realm (the only ones capable of taking those troop trains mentioned) were effectively emasculated by rebuilding. The mood of the professionals who had to run the railway then was almost insurrection when it was announced what was to happen. 

 

What was it one noted?  Ah yes, 'We've solved the problems you were having with the P2s. No more broken crank axles, no more heated bearings and no more spreading of track. However, we've now given you a loco which has equally-debilitating problems (even more so), but they're just different - cylinders working loose, leaking steam pipes, fractured bolts, wild riding and more-frequent shopping intervals. Not only that, the class  won't haul what it used to. In fact, the locos won't take as much as an A3 or an A4. No matter, we'll just get rid of them to 'secondary' English sheds where they won't be a bother, and we'll wait until Peppercorn designs his A2s'. 

 

As I say, reading the notes of the men responsible for their running and listening to the likes of Malcolm convinces me that the rebuilding of the P2s was a great mistake. Professional railwaymen are hard-headed blokes. Not enthusiastic amateurs.

 

All the above said (and it's been said many times - too many?), it's just a bit of railway history now. Anyone with first-hand knowledge is either very, very old or dead! Thankfully, their notes survive. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[t-b-g]

1 minute ago, Tony Wright said:

A sound appraisal, Tony,

 

I must go through Geoff Lund's notes again, but there are several factors about the P2s which might not be entirely known by all.

 

They were, as you say, Britain's most powerful express passenger steam loco (before or since) and they were the only class capable of handling the heaviest loads over the difficult Aberdeen road. Once rebuilt as A2/2s, they were effectively 'useless' on the same line, and, indeed, because of their propensity to slip, were less-capable than an A3 or an A4. 

 

You probably remember Malcolm's comments about the rebuilds - 'A complete waste of money' I recall him saying. And that from a professional railwayman of the highest calibre, not some sentimental enthusiast. 

 

If it is five crank axles which broke (were they on different locos? If so, at least one survived intact), they only ever fractured at low speed on starting, when the maximum torque was applied. 

 

Much of the shopping of the six giants was done at Cowlairs. This was a great mistake in Geoff Lund's view. Without being disparaging to the Glasgow works, hitherto the largest loco worked on there would have been a Reid Atlantic. The general workmanship was poor, and, in Geoff's opinion the class should always have been shopped at Doncaster. 

 

What is hard to understand (at least to me) is that, during the dark days of the War, the six most-powerful locos in the realm (the only ones capable of taking those troop trains mentioned) were effectively emasculated by rebuilding. The mood of the professionals who had to run the railway then was almost insurrection when it was announced what was to happen. 

 

What was it one noted?  Ah yes, 'We've solved the problems you were having with the P2s. No more broken crank axles, no more heated bearings and no more spreading of track. However, we've now given you a loco which has equally-debilitating problems (even more so), but they're just different - cylinders working loose, leaking steam pipes, fractured bolts, wild riding and more-frequent shopping intervals. Not only that, the class  won't haul what it used to. In fact, the locos won't take as much as an A3 or an A4. No matter, we'll just get rid of them to 'secondary' English sheds where they won't be a bother, and we'll wait until Peppercorn designs his A2s'. 

 

As I say, reading the notes of the men responsible for their running and listening to the likes of Malcolm convinces me that the rebuilding of the P2s was a great mistake. Professional railwaymen are hard-headed blokes. Not enthusiastic amateurs.

 

All the above said (and it's been said many times - too many?), it's just a bit of railway history now. Anyone with first-hand knowledge is either very, very old or dead! Thankfully, their notes survive. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I would agree with all that apart from one matter, According to the RCTS, one crank axle broke as a train was pulling into Dundee at the end of its run, rather than starting one out from a station.

 

It surprised me to read it as "common knowledge" was that it was as they started out.

[Headstock]

5 hours ago, t-b-g said:

A few thoughts on P2s and their crank axles.

 

They were the most powerful passenger steam locos in the country, hauling really heavy trains on difficult routes. 

 

To start those heavy trains, the drivers would have had to put huge amounts of power on to get them moving.

 

Under those conditions, any type of loco might have been slightly more prone to broken crank axles.

 

A heavy loco with 8 drivers is less likely to slip, which is how most locos get rid of excess power applied during starting. How many heavy trains did the P2s haul? How many crank axles broke? Maybe one or two more than you would expect compared to other classes but hardly a daily event. Did they ever cause an injury or major incident as a result of the problem? Not to my knowledge.

 

If you start to withdraw and condemn classes because of serious things that might go wrong, you would have nothing left!

 

It may even be the case that crank axles broke because of driver error, putting too much power on too quickly, rather than any fatal design flaw.

 

The very fact that the operating people were happy to use them and didn't want them to go away for rebuilding would suggest that they were not the dreadful failures that some like to make them out to be.

 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

In reply to a few thoughts on the P2

They were the most powerful passenger steam locos in the country, hauling really heavy trains on difficult routes.
The P2s were not the most 'powerful' passenger steam locomotive in the country, that would be the LMS Duchess.

To start those heavy trains, the drivers would have had to put huge amounts of power on to get them moving.

The steam locomotive is a constant force machine, Its all about applying force not power on starting. Power will rise as speed increases. It is impossible for a steam locomotive to apply maximum power on starting.

Under those conditions, any type of loco might have been slightly more prone to broken crank axles.
The P2s were much more likely to brake crank axles than any other passenger locomotive of the period. Take the Duchess for example, a more powerful, locomotive that routinely hauled larger and heavier trains than the P2 and more frequently. They operated on a route and timetable that was just as challenging in a number of respects as the Aberdeen road and acuminated higher mileages doing so. In contrast, the availability of the P2s was pretty poor and most of the trains they operated were a waste of such big engines. In addition, the Duchesses were a class of 37 locomotives against only  6 P2s. Yet not one crank axle failure recorded against a bigger class and in a similar time period to the five known failures so far uncover against the P2. I say so far, because it is believed that there were more. The A3 class used an almost identical design of crank axels, again, like the Duchesses, not a single failure in the comparable time period.

A heavy loco with 8 drivers is less likely to slip, which is how most locos get rid of excess power applied during starting. How many heavy trains did the P2s haul? How many crank axles broke? Maybe one or two more than you would expect compared to other classes but hardly a daily event. Did they ever cause an injury or major incident as a result of the problem? Not to my knowledge.
Why should an injury have to occur before anybody takes any action to solve a problem?

If you start to withdraw and condemn classes because of serious things that might go wrong, you would have nothing left!
There was no suggestion of withdrawal or condemning, that  doesn't seem relevant.

It may even be the case that crank axles broke because of driver error, putting too much power on too quickly, rather than any fatal design flaw.
The crank axle failed because they were too weak for the forces enacting on them. The crank axle was sufficient for class A3, not for P2. There was a design flaw, a sharp edge on the corner of the keyway. The axles didn't just fail in one go, a crack developed were the sharp edge of the keyway abutted the axle. This was enlarged every time the locomotives developed sufficient forces on the crank axle. Over time, the crack enlarged to such an extent that it reached two thirds of the way across the axle, the axle then snapped in two. There is no reason why the axel couldn't have failed at any time once the three-quarter distance was reached by the crack. I've seen photographs of the broken axles, the break is identical, it's pretty scary.

The very fact that the operating people were happy to use them and didn't want them to go away for rebuilding would suggest that they were not the dreadful failures that some like to make them out to be.
I'm sure that the operating department would have not batted an eyelid, if the only suggestion was the fitting of a new design of crank axle and pony truck.

[john new]

There are several factors here all bundled together:-

 

1) Was the P2's front end design flawed? = Yes.

2) From that comes - was Thomson's decision to modify them correct? Also = yes

3) Was his chosen rebuild design the correct choice to fix the known issue? = No.  Hindsight, and the expertise now applied by the new build teams, suggests better alternatives could have been applied.

4) Separately - Was the short- term decision to take them off the Newcastle troop trains a wise one?

 

Answering (4) will depend on how risk averse or risk accepting you are? Once the fault was known then hauled by a P2 you could potentially get your 1000 troops to Newcastle as requested by the Army but from the traffic management department's viewpoint attempting that goal  risked a locomotive failure that could block a vital artery at best (assuming the loco only failed) and, at worst, lead to serious rolling stock, track and infrastructure damage plus injured troops. The immediate short-term alternative was less troops in Newcastle but conversely no risk of a blocked line/derailment so more troops and freight could continue to be shifted, unhindered, in the succeeding days. I have forgotten whether the risks from short-wheelbase wagons were known about before the 1967 cement train/DP2 crash at Thirsk but surely that is an example of the type of incident the CME/traffic side were worried about if an axle had failed under a P2 on the troop train.

Edited January 23, 2020 by john new

[JamieR4489]

2 hours ago, Headstock said:

They were the most powerful passenger steam locos in the country, hauling really heavy trains on difficult routes.
The P2s were not the most 'powerful' passenger steam locomotive in the country, that would be the LMS Duchess.

P2s are 43,462lb whereas Duchesses are 40,000lb

[Bucoops]

6 minutes ago, JamieR4489 said:

P2s are 43,462lb whereas Duchesses are 40,000lb

lb/ft - that's torque.

 

Horsepower is power - if Wikipedia is correct the Duchesses were capable of in excess of 2500hp whereas a P2 in excess of 2000hp. 

[2750Papyrus]

21 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

I really need to go back to school. 

No need, you have a personal tutor!

[JamieR4489]

21 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

lb/ft - that's torque.

 

Horsepower is power - if Wikipedia is correct the Duchesses were capable of in excess of 2500hp whereas a P2 in excess of 2000hp. 

Ah, I made (quite literally) a schoolboy error!

[Bucoops]

26 minutes ago, JamieR4489 said:

Ah, I made (quite literally) a schoolboy error!

 

Not totally scientifically accurate, but:

 

Power is how fast you hit the wall

Torque is how far you go through it

[Dunsignalling]

9 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

 

Not totally scientifically accurate, but:

 

Power is how fast you hit the wall

Torque is how far you go through it

Thanks, that's the half of the Art of Coarse Rally Driving that I'd forgotten.

 

 I know, but to avoid annoying those who've forgotten the half I remembered, the rest is:

 

Understeer is when you go through the wall forwards,

Oversteer is when you go through the wall sideways,

Terminal oversteer is when you go through the wall backwards.

 

John

[Tony Wright]

22 hours ago, great northern said:

I did take some pictures of trains as well on Monday, and by coincidence the first is of one of those controversial A2/2s.  New England did get to provide the loco for the Down Scotsman for a short while, and here is the Wolf doing the job.

 

 

 

My ability when on home turf to get poles growing out of chimneys was, as you see, effortlessly achieved at LB too. That particular pole is a photoshopping nightmare too, as it has a shelf full of locos right behind it, and they blend in with it rather well. I nearly got away with it this time, if you don't blow this up too much. That guarantees that you will, of course.

Good evening Gilbert,

 

I've tried to recreate your shot of the A2/2 on the Down Flying Scotsman, complete with telegraph pole protruding from the chimney. 

 

 

This is the unaltered TIF shot as the camera took the picture.

 

 

After using layers/masks/cloning/sharpening/clarifying, this is the result; slightly cropped from the original. 

 

In order to speed up the process, I cloned the 'wall' colour around the telegraph pole, so I didn't have to take the lasso tool around every insulator. That said, it still took 40 minutes to reach this state. 

 

What does all this show?

 

You have a very good eye for a picture.

 

Unless the space restrictions are really tight, the big camera can get into the same positions (within physical limits). 

 

The depth of field is superior with the big camera  (F32), and the images are crisper (might that be expected, given the enormous difference in the camera's prices?). 

 

By employing longer exposures, I'm able to use pulses of fill-in flash to pick out detail in shadows. 

 

You achieve some splendid results with your small camera

 

Andy York also gets some splendid images with the same camera. 

 

Here's another replicated shot.

 

 

How did the shots come out where I placed your camera on the platforms? That's where I struggle with my Df. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, john new said:

There are several factors here all bundled together:-

 

1) Was the P2's front end design flawed? = Yes.

2) From that comes - was Thomson's decision to modify them correct? Also = yes

3) Was his chosen rebuild design the correct choice to fix the known issue? = No.  Hindsight, and the expertise now applied by the new build teams, suggests better alternatives could have been applied.

4) Separately - Was the short- term decision to take them off the Newcastle troop trains a wise one?

 

Answering (4) will depend on how risk averse or risk accepting you are? Once the fault was known then hauled by a P2 you could potentially get your 1000 troops to Newcastle as requested by the Army but from the traffic management department's viewpoint attempting that goal  risked a locomotive failure that could block a vital artery at best (assuming the loco only failed) and, at worst, lead to serious rolling stock, track and infrastructure damage plus injured troops. The immediate short-term alternative was less troops in Newcastle but conversely no risk of a blocked line/derailment so more troops and freight could continue to be shifted, unhindered, in the succeeding days. I have forgotten whether the risks from short-wheelbase wagons were known about before the 1967 cement train/DP2 crash at Thirsk but surely that is an example of the type of incident the CME/traffic side were worried about if an axle had failed under a P2 on the troop train.

Interesting, John,

 

'2) From that comes - was Thomson's decision to modify them correct? Also = yes'

 

Had Thompson just 'modified' them, then posterity might have considered him worthy of a knighthood. I think it was Bert Spencer and Teddy Windle who suggested that the pony truck could have been modified and the crank axle made more-substantial, with larger bearings. As it was, it seems they were quietly moved aside (being Gresley men), until Peppercorn took over, that is; when he brought them back after Thompson's retirement!  

 

Which makes me agree with you entirely about 3. 

 

Thanks to all for all the P2 comments.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

I suppose one Gresley loco which Edward Thompson might have been seen to have 'improved', was the O2; where he fitted a B1 boiler. I'm not sure it was better, because both the Gresley and the Thompson boilers were excellent steamers. 

 

Anyway, since I've built an O2/4, I thought I'd crack on with an old Nu-Cast O2/3 I've had lying around in a 'started' state for too long. 

 

 

I bought it off Rob Kinsey after Stoke Summit and Charwelton were sold, and he had no need of it then. He'd made most of the tender. 

 

So, a morning's work saw my getting it to this state. 

 

 

Even without any added-lead, it's more than capable of hauling this fully-laden coal train.

 

 

To be fair, so is Heljan's RTR O2/3. In fact, it beats any Hornby or Bachmann 2-8-0 equivalent in that respect.

 

 

I modified/detailed/renumbered it, added a decent chimney (the original is poor), and Geoff Haynes weathered it. 

 

What's the problem? For one, the valve gear is weak in appearance, and two, I never use it. I didn't 'build it' you see. 

 

No doubt it'll be sold-on.

 

 

[Andy Reichert]

One has to wonder what our transportation history would have been like if Micheal Faraday and James Watt had been born in the reverse order. Instead of Steam Punk, the latest Hornby 2020 model announcements would have been for "Electric Victoriana", or something like that.  In fact the likelihood of Steam power or even the "Steam Era" ever being introduced as the underlying force of the Industrial Revolution would have been close to zero.

 

Andy

 

 

[Compound2632]

46 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

One has to wonder what our transportation history would have been like if Micheal Faraday and James Watt had been born in the reverse order. Instead of Steam Punk, the latest Hornby 2020 model announcements would have been for "Electric Victoriana", or something like that.  In fact the likelihood of Steam power or even the "Steam Era" ever being introduced as the underlying force of the Industrial Revolution would have been close to zero.

 

Andy

 

 

 

It was recognised very early on that carrying the power generating plant around with you limited the power available to haul the train. I haven't gone looking for the quote but I think even George Stephenson said that electric traction was the answer in the long run. Brunel's atmospheric railway was an attempt to achieve the same end by purely mechanical means. By the later 19th century, many engineers saw the writing on the wall for the steam locomotive. A number of main lines, including sections of the North Eastern and Midland Railways, would have been electrified by the 1920s if the Great War had not intervened. 

[t-b-g]

The late Malcolm Crawley was once involved in an incident at Barkston triangle when a Peppercorn A1 slipped into full forward gear with a test train including the dynamometer car. The drawbar horsepower showed just over 3,000 for a short while until the situation was brought under control, thankfully before the loco did a "Blue Peter".

 

Unless you have measured power output in many, many situations with different loads in different situations, being certain as to the power output of any steam loco is not a precise science. You can have the same loco with two different crews and you will get two different results.

 

You could put one on a testing station and measure it exactly but even between members of the same class of locos, there were always good ones and bad ones.

 

I just look forward to seeing what Prince of Wales can do if and when it is really given a chance. I can see records for climbing Shap being re-written before too long.

 

If the P2 had the same crank axle as an A3 and, according to the RCTS book, the P2 had a smaller load applied to the crank axle than the A3, I think that pretty much confirms my suspicion that it was factors other than the design of the crank axle which caused breakages on the P2. Almost certainly extra wear and tear due to the pony truck problem and the very sharply curved route they worked on. A beefed up crank axle would have mitigated the problem.

[great northern]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Gilbert,

 

I've tried to recreate your shot of the A2/2 on the Down Flying Scotsman, complete with telegraph pole protruding from the chimney. 

 

 

This is the unaltered TIF shot as the camera took the picture.

 

 

After using layers/masks/cloning/sharpening/clarifying, this is the result; slightly cropped from the original. 

 

In order to speed up the process, I cloned the 'wall' colour around the telegraph pole, so I didn't have to take the lasso tool around every insulator. That said, it still took 40 minutes to reach this state. 

 

What does all this show?

 

You have a very good eye for a picture.

 

Unless the space restrictions are really tight, the big camera can get into the same positions (within physical limits). 

 

The depth of field is superior with the big camera  (F32), and the images are crisper (might that be expected, given the enormous difference in the camera's prices?). 

 

By employing longer exposures, I'm able to use pulses of fill-in flash to pick out detail in shadows. 

 

You achieve some splendid results with your small camera

 

Andy York also gets some splendid images with the same camera. 

 

Here's another replicated shot.

 

 

How did the shots come out where I placed your camera on the platforms? That's where I struggle with my Df. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

I haven't got to those yet Tony. They were the last few of 56!   Many thanks for the kind words, but your photoshopping of the shot of 60506 beats my effort hands down.

 

Anyway, in the hope of finding a view of LB which won't have been seen before, and in accordance with your request to take something which showed the bit of scenic work I did, I took this.

 

 

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

You can have the same loco with two different crews and you will get two different results.

Different coal too.

[Ollie K]

Interesting reading re. the P2s and their wartime exploits, pre-rebuilding. 
 

Were they ever repainted into NE wartime black, or did they carry LNER green throughout the war / until rebuilding as A2/2s?

[pH]

54 minutes ago, OliverBytham said:

Interesting reading re. the P2s and their wartime exploits, pre-rebuilding. 
 

Were they ever repainted into NE wartime black, or did they carry LNER green throughout the war / until rebuilding as A2/2s?

 

According to the P2 project website 2003/4 (at least) got wartime black:

https://www.p2steam.com/category/original-p2s/

Edited January 24, 2020 by pH
Should read more carefully!