Wright writes.....

[Ian Rathbone]

Talking of RODs, here’s one I painted fairly recently. Completely black all over, as sent to France, even with French style buffers. The only colour is the dirty pine floor of the cab. 7mm model built by Mike Edge.

 

Ian R

 

[sandra]

Tony,

 

Thank you for very kindly lending me your A2 60526 Sugar Palm. It’s such a beautiful model it’s a pleasure to have it running on Retford. I put it on the 08.00 Newcastle - Kings Cross and here is a photograph of it heading south over the flat crossing.The model captures perfectly the appearance of a clean locomotive but one that is in service so it is lightly weathered. 
 

60526 was fitted with a double chimney and was shedded at York so I would imagine it could appear on this train although I would guess it might have come off at Grantham.

Here’s another picture of her just north of the station. What I particularly like about it is the very subtle lining. It’s not obtrusive but looks completely natural.  
 

The locomotive does of course run perfectly, it has no difficulty hauling this heavy train. So again I want to thank you very much for very kindly lending it to me for use on Retford.

 

Sandra

[Chas Levin]

On 22/03/2021 at 01:11, Woodcock29 said:

In answer to your question on bunker side steps there should be one step on the left hand side and also an angled handrail on the back of the cab side sheet level with the top of the opening - note these appear to be only on the round tank/bunker C12s not the early square tank /bunker builds.

 

Andrew

Very interesting Andrew, thank you for the info.

On your note that the step on the bunker side and the hand rail on the cab side only appeared on the round-cornered versions: I've been going by the Isinglass drawing (as well as lots of pictures) while currently building the LRM square tank version and on those drawings, he notes that the step and rail were added c.1901 but he doesn't mention whether they were on one version or the other and they're actually shown on the drawings on a square tank version.

I'm not disputing what you said - I know the Isinglass info is not always correct, I just wanted to ask whether you'd seen those drawings or not?

Too late for me in any case, as I added both items in the course of finding extra details to add that weren't in the kit. They were one of the first things I added and I was very pleased with how they looked (it's my first etched loco and adding my first extra detailing was quite exciting) so even if they shouldn't really be there, they're staying :

[gr.king]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Thames Tunnel was built by IKB Brunel's father, the first successful use of the tunneling shield. 

 

Eventual success, after much sickness among workers due to Thames sewage constantly raining down inside the tunnel, flooding of the tunnel due to a roof collapse, and several years with no progress at all because of the difficulties, the toll on health, and the exhaustion of finances.

[Chas Levin]

9 minutes ago, Ian Rathbone said:

Talking of RODs, here’s one I painted fairly recently. Completely black all over, as sent to France, even with French style buffers. The only colour is the dirty pine floor of the cab. 7mm model built by Mike Edge.

 

Ian R

 

Beautiful job Ian! An object lesson in how to make even the plainest black look extremely attractive...

 

I'm intrigued by the French style buffers though (and they do look very stylish: how very French of them!).

 

Why did they go to the trouble of fitting them on British locos sent to France? Unless they were altering the height of the beams, presumably any buffers that were present would meet the Strange Foreign Buffers quite happily, wouldn't they?

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, grahame said:

 

With both ends of Snow Hill tunnel being on the north side, trains would also need to use Blackfriars bridge over the Thames to reach the south side.

 

 

Hi Grahame,

 

I know but lamps were needed for the tunnel in answer to Richards question about were there tunnels.

 

The original photo which started this debate is Colchester as Steve and I stated in our post and is nowhere on the East London or the outer circle route to Bricklayers Arms. Plus the headcode Richard mentioned only applied to cross London freight trains.

 

To confirm Steve's observations here is a Google image before Woods moved to their new abode and the land sold for housing.

 

The coaches and 16ton mineral seem to be either on the new mainline or the sidings that now house the EMUs seen between the old and new mainlines.

[Chas Levin]

11 minutes ago, gr.king said:

 

Eventual success, after much sickness among workers due to Thames sewage constantly raining down inside the tunnel, flooding of the tunnel due to a roof collapse, and several years with no progress at all because of the difficulties, the toll on health, and the exhaustion of finances.

Good grief: can there be anything much worse than being showered with sewage while working in a tunnel?

[Tony Wright]

14 hours ago, gr.king said:

Undoubtedly improved, if still firmly bound in the K's era. Will it get the benefit of some new, reasonably straight handrails?

Thanks Graeme,

 

I'm more or less leaving it as it is now (bent handrails were not uncommon on the real things). 

 

As you say, it's definitely in the K's era - brakes? What are those? 

 

I just have a fascination with old models. If something can be made of them, then I find that very satisfying. Satisfying to others as well, I believe.

 

Jerry and Kim Clifford visited some time ago and we ran trains (Kim drove really fast - great; just what the ECML is all about!). My 40+ year old K's ROD was running and Jerry was fascinated by it being a part of my 'modelling journey'. Though I no longer own it, there was also a Bachmann O4 present which I'd detailed/modified/renumbered/weathered. Though, no doubt, a very nice model, it had no 'history'. Anyone could own it, which is not what modelling is about to Jerry and me. 

 

On another occasion, I was taking photos of some ancient K's locos built by an old friend, many moons ago. They were, as you state, of the K's era (one was a J3) and showed it. But they'd been built by friend, and that was important to him. At the same time, another bloke came along (a member of my local club). He'd just bought the NRM's latest Hornby model of FLYING SCOTSMAN and was afraid he'd damage it by fixing on the extra bits and pieces, so asked me if I'd do it. Which, I did (very easily).

 

'Are you going to take a picture of my model?' he asked. 'Why', I responded. 'It's such a fine model' (the implication being it was far better than my friend's bits of antiquity - which, to be fair, it was). 'But all you've done is bought that' I said. 'It has no story to tell me'. He left, rather dejected..................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited March 24, 2021 by Tony Wright
typo error

[simontaylor484]

19 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

Good grief: can there be anything much worse than being showered with sewage while working in a tunnel?

Drowning in it?

[grahame]

17 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

I know but lamps were needed for the tunnel in answer to Richards question about were there tunnels.

 

 

Yep, appreciate that, but you said "got [to] the other side of the river via Snow Hill tunnel" which gave me the impression that the tunnel goes under the Thames. Hopefully, I was explaining that it is a bridge over the river to reach the other side (from the southern end of Snow Hill tunnel) to avoid any possible confusion for those who don't know.

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

40 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

Very interesting Andrew, thank you for the info.

On your note that the step on the bunker side and the hand rail on the cab side only appeared on the round-cornered versions: I've been going by the Isinglass drawing (as well as lots of pictures) while currently building the LRM square tank version and on those drawings, he notes that the step and rail were added c.1901 but he doesn't mention whether they were on one version or the other and they're actually shown on the drawings on a square tank version.

I'm not disputing what you said - I know the Isinglass info is not always correct, I just wanted to ask whether you'd seen those drawings or not?

Too late for me in any case, as I added both items in the course of finding extra details to add that weren't in the kit. They were one of the first things I added and I was very pleased with how they looked (it's my first etched loco and adding my first extra detailing was quite exciting) so even if they shouldn't really be there, they're staying :

Very neat work Chas,

 

But shouldn't the hinged spectacles be on the inside of the cab front? They opened inwards...........

 

I once put them on the outside of the spectacle plate of a D2 I had made, which I handed over to Ian Rathbone for painting. Fortunately, Ian spotted this error and then removed them and fitted them correctly. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

50 minutes ago, sandra said:

Tony,

 

Thank you for very kindly lending me your A2 60526 Sugar Palm. It’s such a beautiful model it’s a pleasure to have it running on Retford. I put it on the 08.00 Newcastle - Kings Cross and here is a photograph of it heading south over the flat crossing.The model captures perfectly the appearance of a clean locomotive but one that is in service so it is lightly weathered. 
 

60526 was fitted with a double chimney and was shedded at York so I would imagine it could appear on this train although I would guess it might have come off at Grantham.

Here’s another picture of her just north of the station. What I particularly like about it is the very subtle lining. It’s not obtrusive but looks completely natural.  
 

The locomotive does of course run perfectly, it has no difficulty hauling this heavy train. So again I want to thank you very much for very kindly lending it to me for use on Retford.

 

Sandra

You're most welcome Sandra,

 

The subtleties of the livery are down to Geoff Haynes. 

 

Here she is with her OO 'boots' on...........................

 

 

 

I really do have the 'best of both worlds' in this situation. Each loco has two sets of frames - one in OO and one in EM (tender frames as well, of course). 

 

I have to say (and I expect the arrows from those for whom the correct gauge is paramount), in these four respective shots I cannot tell the difference!  

 

I have all the EM bits for DANTE and CLUMBER ready to build. Watch this space.............................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

[Michael Edge]

10 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

Beautiful job Ian! An object lesson in how to make even the plainest black look extremely attractive...

 

I'm intrigued by the French style buffers though (and they do look very stylish: how very French of them!).

 

Why did they go to the trouble of fitting them on British locos sent to France? Unless they were altering the height of the beams, presumably any buffers that were present would meet the Strange Foreign Buffers quite happily, wouldn't they?

The buffers were a bit of a pain to produce - and I've got the same loco to build in 4mm scale as well. 

The buffers are at standard height and spacing, French railways didn't differ significantly. Holes in the buffer faces were quite common outside this country but what were they for?

[cctransuk]

54 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

Holes in the buffer faces were quite common outside this country but what were they for?

 

I believe that they gave access to securing nuts - or some such arrangement.

 

John Isherwood.

[2750Papyrus]

10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

You're most welcome Sandra,

 

The subtleties of the livery are down to Geoff Haynes. 

 

Here she is with her OO 'boots' on...........................

 

 

 

I really do have the 'best of both worlds' in this situation. Each loco has two sets of frames - one in OO and one in EM (tender frames as well, of course). 

 

I have to say (and I expect the arrows from those for whom the correct gauge is paramount), in these four respective shots I cannot tell the difference!  

 

I have all the EM bits for DANTE and CLUMBER ready to build. Watch this space.............................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it can be difficult to tell the wider gauges from a side view, you need to look along the track to appreciate it.  At an exhibition including a  branch terminus which has been mentioned in these pages, it was only when I was walking away and looked back at the layout that I realised it was not 00.

[Dunsignalling]

24 minutes ago, 2750Papyrus said:

 

I think it can be difficult to tell the wider gauges from a side view, you need to look along the track to appreciate it.  At an exhibition including a  branch terminus which has been mentioned in these pages, it was only when I was walking away and looked back at the layout that I realised it was not 00.

It can work the other way too. There have been a number of OO layouts that I've thought to be EM because they exuded "finescale" and were so designed that there was no view to be had along the track.

 

They have generally been smallish terminus-fiddle yard ones, though. As size (especially front-to-back) increases or it becomes necessary to have curves at the ends, it inevitably becomes more difficult to encourage or discourage particular viewing angles. 

 

If it looks right, it is right, as the old saying goes?

 

John

Edited March 24, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Chas Levin]

11 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Very neat work Chas,

 

But shouldn't the hinged spectacles be on the inside of the cab front? They opened inwards...........

 

I once put them on the outside of the spectacle plate of a D2 I had made, which I handed over to Ian Rathbone for painting. Fortunately, Ian spotted this error and then removed them and fitted them correctly. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Oh dear - thanks Tony! I just took another - closer - look at the drawings and realised I'd mistaken the view of the inside of the cab (including the hinges) for the outside!

[Tony Wright]

28 minutes ago, 2750Papyrus said:

 

I think it can be difficult to tell the wider gauges from a side view, you need to look along the track to appreciate it.  At an exhibition including a  branch terminus which has been mentioned in these pages, it was only when I was walking away and looked back at the layout that I realised it was not 00.

In fairness, I chose pictures of 60526 on Little Bytham which were more side-on. 

 

In tighter perspective, the 'narrow gauge' is more apparent. 

 

 

Of course, the other 'similarity' is that both sets of frames are carried on the same types of wheels, only the axle lengths being different. That wouldn't be the case were I building P4 frames (not that I'm skilled enough). 

 

Though none will permit me to mention their names, I know of several EM modellers who, had the current OO RTR standards been available when they adopted 18mm, wouldn't have bothered. They chose EM to get better running.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

14 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

It can work the other way too. There have been a number of OO layouts that I've thought to be EM because they exuded "finescale" and were so designed that there was no view to be had along the track.

 

They have generally been smallish terminus-fiddle yard ones, though. As size (especially front-to-back) increases or it becomes necessary to have curves at the ends, it inevitably becomes more difficult to encourage or discourage particular viewing angles. 

 

If it looks right, it is right, as the old saying goes?

 

John

Good morning John,

 

On several occasions, having originally looked at pictures, many spectators have assumed Little Bytham is in EM (that's due to Norman Solomon's superlative trackwork). 

 

It's only when they see the fiddle yard (with its 'miles' of Peco Streamline) that the OO 'penny drops'. 

 

I've written on many occasions how I wished (over 40 years ago now) I'd have gone EM when I had the opportunity, but it's far too late to change now. Still, as I've mentioned, with helping out on Retford I have the best of both worlds.........................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[robertcwp]

12 hours ago, sandra said:

Tony,

 

Thank you for very kindly lending me your A2 60526 Sugar Palm. It’s such a beautiful model it’s a pleasure to have it running on Retford. I put it on the 08.00 Newcastle - Kings Cross and here is a photograph of it heading south over the flat crossing.The model captures perfectly the appearance of a clean locomotive but one that is in service so it is lightly weathered. 
 

60526 was fitted with a double chimney and was shedded at York so I would imagine it could appear on this train although I would guess it might have come off at Grantham.

Here’s another picture of her just north of the station. What I particularly like about it is the very subtle lining. It’s not obtrusive but looks completely natural.  
 

The locomotive does of course run perfectly, it has no difficulty hauling this heavy train. So again I want to thank you very much for very kindly lending it to me for use on Retford.

 

Sandra

This looks very good. Looking at the timetable, the only call south of York was at Peterborough, so it might be that the engine worked through from Newcastle to King's Cross.

[Mike 84C]

Was it on Wright Writes that I read a topic about cleaning up old photographs to show hidden detail? This was fairly recently. I thought there was an A4 on a turntable in the example photo. Sat up this am till silly o'clock looking and failed. I'm hoping the combined brain power on this thread points me straight at it!   Mick

[jwealleans]

11 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

I've got the same loco to build in 4mm scale as well.

 

If they're accurate, you could see whether Bachmann do them as a spare or anyone has any from a butchered/broken Bachmann model.

[Michael Edge]

The customer doesn't want a Bachmann model. Neither would I, I prefer to build my locos from metal.

[robmcg]

12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

In fairness, I chose pictures of 60526 on Little Bytham which were more side-on. 

 

In tighter perspective, the 'narrow gauge' is more apparent. 

 

 

Of course, the other 'similarity' is that both sets of frames are carried on the same types of wheels, only the axle lengths being different. That wouldn't be the case were I building P4 frames (not that I'm skilled enough). 

 

Though none will permit me to mention their names, I know of several EM modellers who, had the current OO RTR standards been available when they adopted 18mm, wouldn't have bothered. They chose EM to get better running.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

As well as perspective, the photo shows the astonishing depth-of-field you achieve with good lighting, good cameras and good lenses.   The A2 is just out of sharpness at the front but this again is prototypical.

 

Could you repeat for me (please, I wasn't paying sufficient attention when you last wrote it)  the cameras and lenses used?

 

It brings to mind the great photos of Eric Treacy, W J V Anderson and others who tended to use very good lenses and cameras and above all knew their characteristics and limits.  I still don't know how they got so much of the fleeting sunshine moments! When I took photos of steam trains in the 60s the conditions would be perfect but the train late, or the train was on time and the sun would go behind a cloud at the critical moment...  apologies to Cartier-Bresson....  

 

 

 

 

Edited March 24, 2021 by robmcg
added question and correction

[Tony Wright]

18 minutes ago, robmcg said:

 

As well as perspective, the photo shows the astonishing depth-of-field you achieve with good lighting, good cameras and good lenses.   The A2/3 is just out of sharpness at the front but this again is prototypical.

 

Could you repeat for me (please, I wasn't paying sufficient attention when you last wrote it)  the cameras and lenses used?

 

It brings to mind the great photos of Eric Treacy, W J V Anderson and others who tended to use very good lenses and cameras and above all knew their characteristics and limits.  I still don't know how they got so much of the fleeting sunshine moments! When I took photos of steam trains in the 60s the conditions would be perfect but the train late, or the train was on time and the sun would go behind a cloud at the critical moment...  apologies to Ansell Adams or whoever it was who used that last phrase.

 

 

Good evening Rob,

 

The front of the A2 (not A2/3) is not razor sharp, as you observe. Moving the camera an inch further away would have rendered it pin-sharp. 

 

The camera I use for 'eye level' photography is a Nikon Df, full-frame digital SLR.

 

I use several lenses (all Nikon - do not use anything else), including 18mm, 35mm, 50mm, 55mm Micro and 60mm Micro. The Micro lenses are particularly useful because of their very small apertures (typically smaller than F32). 

 

The dodge (if it is a dodge) is to pull back slightly from the subject matter, which automatically increases the depth of field. Because the file sizes of the images are large (the equivalent of medium format film?), the resulting image can be cropped without loss of quality.

 

Lighting is the ambient in the room (plenty of tubes), with pulses of fill-in flash (using a remote big Metz gun) to lift shadows.

 

I cannot get on with little cameras, though I cannot compete with their ability to get into tight spaces. Nor can I compete with their price!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited March 24, 2021 by Tony Wright
to add something