Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Clem said:

That's true. But I'm probably more gullible than Gulliver!

Perhaps a Liliputian took this................................

 

 

Having subjects standing higher than the camera certainly does give different viewpoints. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

There was a request for some pictures of Little Bytham's 'interesting' wagons. 

 

This is certainly one.............................

 

 

Built as a gift by a friend in the North East (thanks Geoff). 

 

I assume these lasted into BR days?

 

More wagon shots tomorrow, and more 'looking upwards' shots as well. 

 

 

[Hollar]

I've been spending some house arrest time reworking a couple of insulated vans to look more like my photos.  This time, I hope, they look more like the real thing after many, many hours with tiny brushes and the faithful, charima-enhancing optivisor.  Luckily for me, CCT are trading again so I was able to letter them up properly.  And of course I didn't notice just how much the left-hand tiebar doesn't look like the real thing.  Tomorrow's little job.

 

Tone

[Dunsignalling]

37 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Did you show me your camera at the Southampton show, John?

 

If so, its depth of field capability was very impressive.

 

I've taken a picture of that same wonderful station building......................

 

 

Not at 1600 ASA, however. And just one shot, with the camera (Nikon D3) on a sturdy tripod. 

 

Perhaps your camera shows us the future in model railway photography.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Yes, Tony, that was me. I didn't appreciate how well that shot had turned out until I got home and saw it on the laptop screen. The lettering on the wagons in the background especially impressed me.

 

I have to confess that my input was limited to framing it and not wobbling too much whilst the camera did its stuff!

 

There were a couple of other shots that didn't go so well; one including the lattice footbridge, offered so many possible focussing points that the poor thing became completely confused and certain spurious effects (properly called digital artifacts, I believe) got generated in the left background. It would never have happened with film, but then again, none of the rest would, either.

 

As with all things, horses for courses, but I think it does offer another route to getting decent pictures under conditions that may not be ideal. The beastie will also do "conventional" focus stacking, Panasonic call it focus bracketing, and it can be set to take up to a wholly excessive total of 999 frames. That requires the stacking to be done in post-processing, for which I don't yet have the necessary software. Any recommendations gratefully received.   

 

John

Edited May 27, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[Steamport Southport]

29 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

There was a request for some pictures of Little Bytham's 'interesting' wagons. 

 

This is certainly one.............................

 

 

Built as a gift by a friend in the North East (thanks Geoff). 

 

I assume these lasted into BR days?

 

More wagon shots tomorrow, and more 'looking upwards' shots as well. 

 

 

 

 

This photo is 1970.

 

https://www.railscot.co.uk/img/33/139/

 

The lettering on this one is a bit more like the model.

 

https://hmrs.org.uk/photographs/leith-general-warehousing-10t-grain-van-118-unidloc-side-tare-7-18-2-spoked-wheels-lettered-with-large-company-initials.html

 

 

 

Jason

Edited May 27, 2020 by Steamport Southport

[thegreenhowards]

9 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good afternoon Andy,

 

my ears must be burning.

 

I have no love for MK 1's but I don't hate them. Their stock rises if modellers are taking the time and effort to build them. Catering carriages of all types are always of interest. Yours get three gold stars, being built by yourself, being based on a real prototype and despite being MK 1's, they avoid the cookie cutter phenomenon. However, I'm nocking one star off, for getting the division line between the crimson and cream band in the wrong place on the lower bodyside!

My lack of love is basically that

1. They are boring, a virus of uniformity.

2. They are ugly, not in an interesting way, just boring ugly.

3. Real word proliferation, leading to the disappearance of a wonderful diversity of elegant, individual, interesting, quirky, if unsafe rolling stock. The alternative is safe but a bit boring

4. model railway proliferation, except for one or two  loonies, people just buy MK1's fully formed, (or should that be malformed) leading to the disappearance of a wonderful diversity of elegant, individual, interesting, quirky, modelling. The alternative is .........................you guessed it.

Good evening Andrew,

 

I certainly agree with your 1, 3 & 4 above. I don’t find them ugly.

 

I have studied this for a while and can’t see what’s wrong with the division between crimson and cream. Should it be higher or lower? The RK looks different from the others, but that’s because the windows are higher.
 

Andy

[Taz]

6 hours ago, Steven B said:

 

Oddly enough I find a lot of Big-4 designs uniform. Each had it's own standard designs that only varied when the chief engineer changed. Surely a rake of 100% Gresley, Stanier, Maunsell or Hawksworth designed coached is just as dull. The variety comes in as soon as you start mixing designs - add a pre-nationalisation coach to a rake of Mk1s and the train becomes more interesting. Similarly mixing Mk1, 2 and 3s together does the same, just fewer people do it.

 

There are plenty of passenger carrying Mk1 diagrams that have yet to be produced RTR, before starting on parcel and post stock.

 

Steven B.

This is one of the main reasons I model the GW main line in Devon in 1960 - the shear variety of coaching stock.

 

It seems the only rule When it came to GWR or BR(W) coach rake composition was no two vehicles will be of the same type / diagram.

Then there are the cross country trains which included ex LMS and ex LNER vehicles.

The only coaches which seemed to be quite rare were ex SR.
 

Plenty of modelling potential.
 

 

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

Good evening Andrew,

 

I certainly agree with your 1, 3 & 4 above. I don’t find them ugly.

 

I have studied this for a while and can’t see what’s wrong with the division between crimson and cream. Should it be higher or lower? The RK looks different from the others, but that’s because the windows are higher.
 

Andy

 

Apologies Andy,

 

the dividing line is a bit undulating and seems to be different on the corridor and kitchen sides. How are you masking? Also, are you sure about the door furniture, I thought that it was absent on the Kitchen Cars.

 

Beauty and ugliness is in the eye of the beholder, as Tony has pointed out. The two things about the MK1's, they look harsh, and they look cheap in their detail design. The proportions are slightly off, the Golden section doesn't work properly on them. The window size is slightly wrong, the solebars two thin, the end of the roof like an unfinished razors edge. They are just psychologically disturbing

 

Compare and contrast the similar layout of the MK1 corridor third with the better detailed aesthetics of the Bulleid corridor third. The latter has all the élan lacking in the former.

[chrisf]

11 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

The wond'rful language thee calleth english is f'r ev'r evolving railway station  to traineth station.

 

Don't you mean regressing?

 

Chris

[Bernard Lamb]

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

There was a request for some pictures of Little Bytham's 'interesting' wagons. 

 

This is certainly one.............................

 

 

Built as a gift by a friend in the North East (thanks Geoff). 

 

I assume these lasted into BR days?

 

More wagon shots tomorrow, and more 'looking upwards' shots as well. 

 

 

No problem date wise. Well into the 1960s in various photos.

However how it got to LB would be my question.

They usually worked from the docks as far as Haymarket and would then go on to various branches to Dalry and Gorgie and similar places. ( I have family who still live in Currie right next to the Balerno branch so some local knowledge). I would have thought that an excursion of much more than ten miles from Leith would be rather rare.

Bernard

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, chrisf said:

 

Don't you mean regressing?

 

Chris

Forsooth!

[Headstock]

9 hours ago, Taz said:

This is one of the main reasons I model the GW main line in Devon in 1960 - the shear variety of coaching stock.

 

It seems the only rule When it came to GWR or BR(W) coach rake composition was no two vehicles will be of the same type / diagram.

Then there are the cross country trains which included ex LMS and ex LNER vehicles.

The only coaches which seemed to be quite rare were ex SR.
 

Plenty of modelling potential.
 

 

 

Good morning Taz,

You could pick any period from the turn of the century to the 1960s, on the GW mainline in Devon and say exactly the same thing. There was nothing unique about the 1960s. In fact, comparatively speaking, there was less variety than some earlier periods. GWR practice was always to equip its formations on a carriage by carriage basis, they were  characterised by the variety of stock deployed in the same formation. Don't worry 1950s, 1930s or 1900s modellers, you are not missing out.

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Apologies Andy,

 

the dividing line is a bit undulating and seems to be different on the corridor and kitchen sides. How are you masking? Also, are you sure about the door furniture, I thought that it was absent on the Kitchen Cars.

 

Beauty and ugliness is in the eye of the beholder, as Tony has pointed out. The two things about the MK1's, they look harsh, and they look cheap in their detail design. The proportions are slightly off, the Golden section doesn't work properly on them. The window size is slightly wrong, the solebars two thin, the end of the roof like an unfinished razors edge. They are just psychologically disturbing

 

Compare and contrast the similar layout of the MK1 corridor third with the better detailed aesthetics of the Bulleid corridor third. The latter has all the élan lacking in the former.

My word,

 

That's the first time I've ever heard of the Golden Mean being used in the design of railway carriages.

 

And, I must be mentally-tough; the design of any railway carriage has never psychologically disturbed me. 

 

Every day's a school-day!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

7 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

My word,

 

That's the first time I've ever heard of the Golden Mean being used in the design of railway carriages.

 

And, I must be mentally-tough; the design of any railway carriage has never psychologically disturbed me. 

 

Every day's a school-day!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Have you never seen a cuddly carriage? I bet you were much happier on LB 1939 weekend and never realized it was the absence of MK1 carriages.

[grahame]

8 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

. .  two things about the MK1's, they look harsh, and they look cheap in their detail design. The proportions are slightly off, the Golden section doesn't work properly on them. The window size is slightly wrong, the solebars two thin, the end of the roof like an unfinished razors edge. They are just psychologically disturbing.

 

Not for me fortunately. And luckily we're all different in what we prefer and find ugly or beautiful.

 

There's something appealing about Mk1s functionality and simplicity especially in comparison with many of the over fussy earlier coach designs. And they were very successful. So nothing wrong with them AFAIC.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2020 by grahame
Re-correcting auto-correction corrections

[Taz]

19 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Taz,

You could pick any period from the turn of the century to the 1960s, on the GW mainline in Devon and say exactly the same thing. There was nothing unique about the 1960s. In fact, comparatively speaking, there was less variety than some earlier periods. GWR practice was always to equip its formations on a carriage by carriage basis, they were  characterised by the variety of stock deployed in the same formation. Don't worry 1950s, 1930s or 1900s modellers, you are not missing out.

Andrew,

 

You are, of course, right.

 

It is the location, rather than the period, which provides the variety.

However, being born in the 70s I have no recollection of mainline steam so rely heavily on published photos for my inspiration. There is a plethora of material from the 50s and 60s.

I have settled on 1960 because I prefer maroon to crimson & cream and it also allows me to run the odd diesel.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

34 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

Not for me fortunately. And luckily we're all different in what we prefer and find ugly or beautiful.

 

There's something appealing about Mk1s functionality and simplicity especially in comparison with many of the over fussy earlier coach designs. And they were very successful. So nothing wrong with them AFAIC.

 

 

I entirely agree, Grahame,

 

I think the BR Mk.1 is one of the most functional of designs, rejoicing in its simplicity. It's elegant and well-proportioned. 

 

With a working life of over 60 years (are some still in service?), it must rank as one of the most-successful carriage designs of all time.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

41 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Have you never seen a cuddly carriage? I bet you were much happier on LB 1939 weekend and never realized it was the absence of MK1 carriages.

'Happier', Andrew?

 

How could I be? The 1938 weekend on LB (not 1939) replicated a time eight years before I was born. And, anyway, how could I have been happier without Peppercorn's A1s, surely the finest LNER-designed Pacific?

 

And, of course, with MK.1s to be pulled by them.........

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

33 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

Not for me fortunately. And luckily we're all different in what we prefer and find ugly or beautiful.

 

There's something appealing about Mk1s functionality and simplicity especially in comparison with many of the over fussy earlier coach designs. And they were very successful. So nothing wrong with them AFAIC.

 

 

 

Good morning Grahame,

 

the thing about the devotees to the simplicity and functionality equals good argument, is that as soon as you visit their houses, the first thing that you notice is that simplicity and function is right out the window in favour of cosy comfort.

 

The MK1's were indeed successful, or were they? The MK2s came in within a decade and reversed almost all the design philosophy of the MK1's. Cuddly carriages with better proportioned windows were back.

[Tony Wright]

There have been expressions of late suggesting a 'liking' of 'looking up' scenes on the M&GNR bit of LB..........

 

Here are three more.

 

 

 

Ivatt 4MT 43106 (modified Bachmann) heads the 'Leicester' westwards.

 

 

And, going the other way, 43127 (scratch-built) heads for Cromer. 

 

Not a MK.1 in sight!

 

 

Edited May 28, 2020 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Tony Wright]

2 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Grahame,

 

the thing about the devotees to the simplicity and functionality equals good argument, is that as soon as you visit their houses, the first thing that you notice is that simplicity and function is right out the window in favour of cosy comfort.

 

The MK1's were indeed successful, or were they? The MK2s came in within a decade and reversed almost all the design philosophy of the MK1's. Cuddly carriages with better proportioned windows were back.

'The MK2s came in within a decade and reversed almost all the design philosophy of the MK1's.'

 

Which, in turn, were superseded by the Mk.3s (with obstructing pillars in the second class cars), and then came the Mk.4s. Cuddly carriages? Really?

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Headstock]

5 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

'Happier', Andrew?

 

How could I be? The 1938 weekend on LB (not 1939) replicated a time eight years before I was born. And, anyway, how could I have been happier without Peppercorn's A1s, surely the finest LNER-designed Pacific?

 

And, of course, with MK.1s to be pulled by them.........

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Ecstatic Tony,

 

I'm sure that you could have sneaked a couple of A1's in there, 1938 or 1939, lets honest, the time period was a little stretched shall we say.

[grahame]

16 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

the thing about the devotees to the simplicity and functionality equals good argument, is that as soon as you visit their houses, the first thing that you notice is that simplicity and function is right out the window in favour of cosy comfort.

 

 

Maybe, but I don't think there is any requirement to furnish one's home in the style of architecture and railway carriage design that one prefers. But then I'm certainly not in to flouncy, flowery and frilly furnishing, cushions, floral print drapes and tasselled couches and prefer to keep things relatively simple with clean lines, although I do like to be comfortable when siting and relaxing.

 

And I actually find the comfort of Mk1 seating to be more than adequately cosy and enjoyable.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2020 by grahame

[Headstock]

6 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

'The MK2s came in within a decade and reversed almost all the design philosophy of the MK1's.'

 

Which, in turn, were superseded by the Mk.3s (with obstructing pillars in the second class cars), and then came the Mk.4s. Cuddly carriages? Really?

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

The pillars were for hugging.

[Headstock]

1 minute ago, grahame said:

 

And I actually find the comfort of Mk1 seating to be more than adequately cosy and enjoyable.

 

Which is more than can be said for the ride of the bogies.