Wright writes.....

[D.Platt]

Tony

Thanks for reminding us of all these brilliant layouts, does bring a longing to get back to an exhibition again, one of my favourites not shown , The Gresley Beat.

Dennis

 

[Barry O]

Very nice photos Tony. How about Carlisle?

 

Baz

[2750Papyrus]

Thanks for posting those photos, Tony.  A pleasure to see them on a gloomy day.

 

[LNER4479]

Poor old Tony - he's never going to win showing a selection of layouts like that!

 

At least they're all in alphabetical order, for easier identification of those 'missed'...

[Chamby]

43 minutes ago, bbishop said:

 

Could you have a look at St. Merryn.  What does it have that Little Bytham doesn't?

 

 

A Bulleid light Pacific?

 

[grob1234]

Pempoul looks to me the most natural of layouts. An incredible standard of modelling.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, bbishop said:

Thanks Tony,  if one excludes the Certain Other Railway layouts (that I never look at), I got over 50% correct.

 

Could you have a look at St. Merryn.  What does it have that Little Bytham doesn't?

 

Bill

The correct gauge, Bill.

 

Also, a fictitious location. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

[Tony Wright]

51 minutes ago, Barry O said:

Very nice photos Tony. How about Carlisle?

 

Baz

Good call, Baz,

 

Carlisle indeed!

 

 

 

 

The reason I didn't feature this fantastic creation first time around is down to............. time!

 

All the previous pictures are on my 'daily' computer. Carlisle is on a separate hard drive, then there's my other computer, packed with pictures. 

 

Accessing these shots just takes a little more time. 

 

I'm told much, much more has been done in the last two years since our last visit to see it in France. Let's hope before too long again..............................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

45 minutes ago, Chamby said:

 

A Bulleid light Pacific?

 

 

I'm afraid you're wrong, Phil.

 

St.Merryn doesn't have over 75 Pacifics of other sorts!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited January 3, 2021 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, D.Platt said:

Tony

Thanks for reminding us of all these brilliant layouts, does bring a longing to get back to an exhibition again, one of my favourites not shown , The Gresley Beat.

Dennis

 

Good afternoon Dennis,

 

The reason I didn't include The Gresley Beat was because I photographed it in the first decade of this century...........................

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

51 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Poor old Tony - he's never going to win showing a selection of layouts like that!

 

At least they're all in alphabetical order, for easier identification of those 'missed'...

Good afternoon Graham,

 

Win what?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

Copenhagen Fields is the most photogenic and the most harmonious amongst the images posted IMO. The other really big layouts lack focus in stills, I guess you only get them if you see them in the flesh. I really like the little red engine, by the signal box on top of a pile of rocks. The figures are the only thing that jars a little on both that and Copenhagen Fields. I like the French one, except the car and Staly Vegas, is that the name? That ones is quite evocative but is quite daring in the way that it is realised when seen in real life.

 

The one that I would really want to see in the flesh though would be Shap, it has an innate sense of drama unmatched by the others. Personally, that transcends whatever I might think is the best technical modelling. 

Edited January 3, 2021 by Headstock
REMOVE,

[t-b-g]

3 hours ago, john new said:

Given the responses above I am one of the odd ball readers. I quite like shots that show the railway in its room rather than a forced in extra. A layout needs a fascia and a back scene and they are part of the modelling totality and, as in the recent DVD/YouTube link you recently posted, it is useful to see how modellers successfully do, or don’t, process their edges.

 

 

I am with you on that.

 

I would rather see a layout as it is rather than what it would be like if it was really outside.

 

How the railway is set up, what the real background looks like in the room, are things that are all part of the hobby and we can all look at what others have done or not done and learn about what looks good.

 

A false digital sky and a digitally added foreground take that opportunity away.

 

Cropping a photo to cut out background clutter is something I am happy with. Faking a view to make a layout look bigger or to make the edges look better than they really are is something I am not so keen on.

 

I would rather go for "warts and all" views than digitally enhanced.

 

So you are not quite alone but I am sure we are in a minority!

[grahame]

Any snaps of 'Hornsey Broadway' and 'Blueball Summit' please? - a couple of recent current layouts that I rate highly.

 

And here's a few snaps of a layout that I managed to grab this year with a tiny compact camera admittedly (if it's okay):

 

 

 

 

 

[queensquare]

30 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Dennis,

 

The reason I didn't include The Gresley Beat was because I photographed it in the first decade of this century...........................

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

It always amused me that the wagon on the coal tower is from New Rock Colliery, Radstock - Somerset coal on the ECML!

 

Jerry

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Graham,

 

Win what?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

keep blocking out the backgrounds please. As well as great layouts, there is great layout photography. You didn't earn your stripes by taking pictures of peoples wallpaper. Including the general local of layouts, is nor something that I would encourage on an open forum.

[Dunsignalling]

2 hours ago, grob1234 said:

Pempoul looks to me the most natural of layouts. An incredible standard of modelling.

One of my all-time favourites. Neither continental prototypes nor narrow gauge fit my primary interests, giving a good indication of how good I think it is.

 

No r-t-r, few (if any) bits from kits and even the road vehicles are scratch built, but a usually-unconsidered tiny detail first drew me in. Fallen leaves, beautifully executed and naturally gathered exactly where the wind would blow the prototypes. 

 

Everything on the layout is observed, made and finished to a similar, exquisite standard.  Up there with the very best. I went to  more than one show just to see it again!

 

John

 

 

Edited January 3, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Tumut]

Hello All,

 

re sky background, whilst I admire some of the sky ( with or without clouds ) in the above selection of photos; I  personally think that a muted pale blue grey colour tends to look more "real" on a model, and it is less distracting, therefore the model is the highlight.

 

I personally feel that strong blue, which on some days is doubtless accurate, is jarring and distracting on a model, where your sight line is different to that when viewing the real thing. With some exceptions, I also feel that clouds can be distraction , and from some viewing angles, just does not look right.

 

However, the most important thing is to enjoy the model,

 

Regards, Tumut

[APOLLO]

 

Best photo / layout of the lot for me. full of gritty atmosphere. It must have been a very sad occasion indeed photographing this layout just before it was dismantled.

 

Brit15

[Tony Wright]

32 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

Best photo / layout of the lot for me. full of gritty atmosphere. It must have been a very sad occasion indeed photographing this layout just before it was dismantled.

 

Brit15

It was a very sad occasion. 

 

If ever WW3 broke out, the place to be would be under a Dave Shakespeare baseboard! 

 

Andy York, Gilbert Barnatt and I lost pounds in sweat as we 'broke up' the final manifestation of Tetleys Mills. Fortunately, even though each board was 'permanently' fixed to its neighbours and trackwork went directly across joints, we managed to not do too much damage. The scene in view could easily be recreated by its new owner.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Rich63]

Re : 60532 coming to grief on Honiton Bank, I seem to recall a Steam Railway article describing the experience.  Apparently either some of the grate was alleged to have collapsed or maybe it was the brick arch. Can't remember now, but it was more than poor coal and 'inexperience '

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

keep blocking out the backgrounds please. As well as great layouts, there is great layout photography. You didn't earn your stripes by taking pictures of peoples wallpaper. Including the general local of layouts, is nor something that I would encourage on an open forum.

Good afternoon Andrew,

 

Many thanks.

 

Different photographic styles with regard to model railways is never going to please everyone. As mentioned, I no longer put real skies behind any of the images I take. At most I'll extend a backscene, cloning the colours therein.

 

What's the alternative? Or alternatives? As you say, people's wallpaper, or shelves, doors, windows, wardrobes, cupboards, plants, climbing bars and ropes (if the layout's in a sports hall), cups of tea, bellies (often fat!), crowds and all manner of other distractions. Left in, the eye is immediately drawn to these; the complete opposite to reality, where the eye shuts these out. 

 

Digital 'enhancement' has been mentioned, but I consider that nonsense. What I do doesn't enhance any part of the actual model. If the modelling is out-of-kilter, telegraph poles and signals are out-of-plumb, painting is poor or there are scuffs and dents, or buildings are de-laminating through age, I'm afraid (actually, not afraid at all) that's how they stay. Having said the above, I did 'remove' a dead wasp from one shot of late; which rather proves my point in a way (though it's probably enhancement). My eye dismissed it in reality (I didn't see it), but there it was in the picture! 

 

'Eye level' photography on model railways has necessitated backgrounds be taken out (can you imagine what a magazine's readership would say if all the clutter mentioned above were left in?). In the Brian Monaghan days of 'helicopter' shots, it didn't matter - what was achieved in the main were 'plan' views. 

 

Other than a 'fake' sky or black-out/white-out a baseboard edge (which can give a nice text box), one thing I'll never do with a picture is add things which aren't really there - grand houses, trees, distant hills and so on and so on. 

 

Each to their own, I suppose..................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[john new]

2 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

keep blocking out the backgrounds please. As well as great layouts, there is great layout photography. You didn't earn your stripes by taking pictures of peoples wallpaper. Including the general local of layouts, is nor something that I would encourage on an open forum.

I wouldn't want it in every one, but an occasional including the surrounds, like that of the Bullied above is helpful. Show videos are helpful in this respect as provided most shots cut out too much most of the background they let you see what works and what doesn't regarding things like back-scenes. 

 

Edited January 3, 2021 by john new
Hit send too early!

[Headstock]

49 minutes ago, john new said:

I wouldn't want it in every one, but an occasional including the surrounds, like that of the Bullied above is helpful. Show videos are helpful in this respect as provided most shots cut out too much of the background they let you see what works and what doesn't regarding things like back-scenes. 

 

 

Good afternoon John,

 

I was thinking more about being cautious of showing a location and details of that location, to those of more dubious intent.

[grahame]

20 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

At the start of this new decade, I thought I'd have a brief look through the files to see what Little Bytham looked like ten years ago..................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have to admit to being in the 'crop out' distracting background clutter that isn't part of the modelling camp. And replace it with a plain 'sky' rather like a grey overcast day or monotone colour.

 

However, I find that bright blue skies with fluffy white clouds rarely work (as above) partly because I believe the clouds often look like they extend down below the viewers eye level and, of course, due to the other issues reported like non-matching sunny shadows. AFAIA, although clouds may reach down to the distant horizon, the atmospheric effects (like clouds) tend to come forward and above/over your head (as you reduce your viewing distance). Generally you can't look left and right and see the clouds lower than you are. Only in rare circumstances are they level with or below your eye line.

 

Hmmm, I don't think I've explained that very well.