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.

Tony Wright

Wright writes.....

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Picking up again on 'wonky' track, without the 'zoomed-in' effect, the dip quite isn't quite as noticeable. 

 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_08/1366379147_60026MILESBEEVOR.jpg.a3b8af5f4ce178dca95680e57f2adea2.jpg 

 

 

... but the waggle of the second van as it drops into the dip is. Now that could look rather good - let's have video of a fitted freight going through at speed, shot from that angle!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

 

Sad as it might make me, I like to guess the year of the photos in Steam World, by not looking at the caption first. If nothing else, it encourages one to look closely at details.

 

I've possibly mentioned this before, but in 40-odd years of looking at railway photos, I've never once seen a picture taken on my birthday (13/3/66). A week or so either side, but none at all on the day itself. Eventually I found some weather records for the UK in that period and discovered that there was a lot of rain around in mid March. Presumably there was no great incentive to go out taking photos of trains.

 

Interesting perhaps to think that, even in the twilight years of steam, when photographers were in general out and about in large numbers, there may have been whole days, or even weeks, which are little documented.

 

Al

 

 

 

 

 

 

At one time I considered setting a layout on the day that I was born - Saturday 16/6/56 - but in the end I decided that it was too restrictive - no Star, no gas turbines, no diesels, no chocolate and cream Mk1s, and so on - so I broadened things up to cover the whole of the 1950s (and, if I'm totally honest, a teeny weeny bit of 1960 so I can run the lovely Bachmann Mk1 TPOs).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

... but the waggle of the second van as it drops into the dip is. Now that could look rather good - let's have video of a fitted freight going through at speed, shot from that angle!

It's been done.

 

Last year.

 

And the 'drooping' van isn't totally caused by its being on the dip. Its suspension's down (not that it has any suspension) at its leading end. Honestly! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

At one time I considered setting a layout on the day that I was born - Saturday 16/6/56 - but in the end I decided that it was too restrictive - no Star, no gas turbines, no diesels, no chocolate and cream Mk1s, and so on - so I broadened things up to cover the whole of the 1950s (and, if I'm totally honest, a teeny weeny bit of 1960 so I can run the lovely Bachmann Mk1 TPOs).

John,

 

If I set my layout in the year that I was born (1946), there'd not be much which needed painting in pristine condition, except the brand new Thompson A2/3s. Just about every prototype picture from the year reveals everything filthy dirty, and still run down from the ravages of war. One shot which sticks in the memory is of the World speed record holder, in appalling condition, with just the number '22' crudely stencilled on the cabsides. At least I wouldn't have to engage the services of professional painters!

 

There'd be no BR (yet) of course, nor Peppercorn's wonderful A1s, but perhaps the occasional new B1 to lift the gloom. 

 

I don't find the year I've chosen (1958) restrictive at all, with one huge exception - no Deltics! Still, LB being my trainset, Rule. 1 applies and I happily run these most-favourite of locos through a station demolished at least 18 months before they first appeared. I now run CITY OF LONDON as well, four years after the platforms disappeared forever! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The recent comments about 'dips in the track' set my mind working (as usual, slowly!) with regard to how uncompromisingly-cruel model railway photography can be. I suppose all photography can be 'cruel' (I'm reminded of an occasion one day when a parent questioned me as to why the school photograph of her daughter made her look fat, particularly in the face. I declined to comment, and fought back a giggle), but just when I think I'm getting somewhere with my modelling, the poor building and errors are revealed in crystal clarity.

 

Just to show that the 'dip' isn't quite as bad as it appears in that earlier shot, I've taken a few more photos this morning..................

 

173791086_V260982onfittedgoods01.jpg.6873779a6b9b31ba7639a8e0bb96e5ca.jpg

 

From a similar viewpoint to the one of the A4 posted yesterday, I agree the dip is apparent, but not so pronounced because that 'dodgy' van (the fourth vehicle in the train) is not on it. Look closely, that same van does lean forward. 

 

As to a container on a 'Conflat', well! 

 

1468076138_V260982onfittedgoods02.jpg.1e9d2a86ba8299ad3a3c7ea87a5c04db.jpg

 

That leaning-forward van is more apparent in tight perspective (vans with dodgy suspension were not unknown on the prototype).

 

The dip is nowhere near as apparent in this shot.

 

Despite my reluctance to indulge in too much Photoshoppery, I've taken out the areas under the bridge as well as the general background. 

 

254195744_V260982onfittedgoods03.jpg.ed9db24967f76aafeda0d2ea9d8fb3a9.jpg

 

The dip is hardly apparent at all from this angle. However, take a close look at that new V2 I've built. The footplate under the cab is not parallel to the central footplate section at all and the cab rainstrip is not parallel with the eaves! See what I mean about 'cruel' photography? 

 

I wonder if those errors will appear in the shot the model of 'me' has just taken! 

 

699446042_A2260504onDownFlyingScotsman.jpg.8933bbe2d6daa1867ccf892f4e3c4b67.jpg

 

The dip can just be seen in front of this A2/2 on the Down 'Flying Scotsman'. It's actually at the end of a point.

 

1659081326_A160116onDownNorthumbrian.jpg.8e3014eaae716a483ef130aefd3dbf83.jpg

 

Of course, from 'normal' viewing angles, the dip can't be detected at all. 

 

1701100485_60508onUpexpressinstation.jpg.40dee147caea27a710c75b67bdaa82c9.jpg

 

Especially with another train hiding it! 

 

My dear old Jamieson hand-cut A2/1 has now just past 43 years of age. Odd, that I managed to get the footplates straight on this. Clearly, I've not 'improved' my modelling at all over the last four decades. I even painted this one!

 

Oh, and the 'white stuff' appearing to emanate from 60508's chimney is actual limestone in the cutting! 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point
  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cruelty by photography again! The wire of the foreground fence hugely detracts from the image; exactly as it would in a photo of the real thing if there was bright new fence wire OOF in foreground.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AY Mod said:

I was talking to Tony a little earlier and we talked about pan shots. I mentioned that I'd had a quick play whilst photographing an O gauge layout yesterday and he suggested adding it to the topic. I don't regard such shots as having much illustrative value when photographing layouts but it just seemed opportune to do one. High speed blur would have looked odd with an 8F trundling along with loose minerals so the scale speed was dropped to about 25 mph. 1/30 @ f2.8 320 ISO for the base shot with added photofrippery afterwards.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_08/8Fpan.jpg.a23e06ed38c5f86d2f1462ed1454d781.jpg

 

The layout is Leamington & Warwick MRS's 'Kimble' which will feature in BRM December just before it's first outing at Warley show in November.

You're much better at this kind of thing than I am, Andy!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

With pleasure, Chas,

 

Remember, some A4s did exchange tenders, but here's the BR list of all those A4s which (at one time or another) towed a tender with the extra strip at the base of the tank..............

 

60001

60002; both 60001 and 60002 had streamlined non-corridor tenders with this feature.

60003 (possibly, with a corridor tender)

60006; with a corridor tender

60008; with a corridor tender

60009 (but not with every corridor tender she towed; maybe never)

60010

60011

60012

60013; with a corridor tender

60021 (but only when she towed a 1935 streamlined corridor tender)

60022 (but only when she towed a 1935 streamlined corridor tender)

60024 (only up until the last months of her life, when she then lost her corridor tender with the feature)

60026; with a corridor tender

60027

60031

 

I think this list is right (if my memory serves). Anyone finding mistakes, please advise.

 

It's a feature which is so-rarely modelled on A4s, and I think it deserves highlighting. 

 

How do I represent it? by using 1.5 mm brass strip, soldered to the base of the tender's soleplate. I suppose for (lightweight) plastic tenders, Plastikard strip of appropriate size would do, glued on.  

 

Perhaps the following pictures might help....................

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_08/336751964_60002showingtenderstrip.jpg.7a249e8aca37f3bdb477c1f80d4573c7.jpg

 

It's easy to see the strip on a streamlined non-corridor tender.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_08/743946179_60020notenderstrip.jpg.f388b939c22e18cebfe221c2ff4faead.jpg

 

And easy to see when it's not.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_08/1880020546_60012tenderstrip.jpg.542a97c669f1b82786c79cb610ef4f91.jpg

 

It's more difficult to detect the strip on a corridor tender of full width. The easiest way to tell is that the base of the strip lines up with the base of the loco's valance. Like here.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_08/1870197933_60013showingtenderstrip.jpg.b8129460aa806fbb0f30cb9c4d3779da.jpg

 

And here.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_08/768161715_60009notenderstrip.jpg.9e46d4cfde955f29e421b524ad7fb3fa.jpg

 

No strip here, and the base of the valance is lower than the soleplate on the tender.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_08/993675069_60028notenderstrip.jpg.ffda64323e6d0139f1e2775da7769a1a.jpg

 

The same here. The ends of the triangular outriggers supporting the tank are also visible. The strip covers these up. 

 

All of these above require the 'eye of faith', but I hope the detail is apparent.

 

How do I know all this? Do you think I have some sort of condition? 

 

Please (all) observe copyright restrictions on these images.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hi Tony, All,

I hope I'm not breaking any copyright by quoting you here?

These are absolutely superb pictures and make Sir Nigel's magnificent machines look particularly good. May I ask, please? Are these pictures from a book, if so which one?

Also, my apologies if I've missed it as I have had to 'skip' multiple pages on here on occasion but what do you think of the various RTR 4mm models of A4s, please? Hornby, Bachmann and Dapol (Black Label?).

I know that none will be highly rated for haulage but I'm thinking more of how well they capture the 'look' of the original, as exemplified by the above pictures.

Finally, no - of course, you don't have a 'condition', just a healthy fascination of and love for the prototype!

Best regards,

John.

 

PS The "search" function is useful, of course! I just found an early discussion from around Feb 2017 (page c.580) but I'd still like to know how they all compare (please!)

Edited by Allegheny1600
Used search
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Allegheny1600 said:

Hi Tony, All,

I hope I'm not breaking any copyright by quoting you here?

These are absolutely superb pictures and make Sir Nigel's magnificent machines look particularly good. May I ask, please? Are these pictures from a book, if so which one?

Also, my apologies if I've missed it as I have had to 'skip' multiple pages on here on occasion but what do you think of the various RTR 4mm models of A4s, please? Hornby, Bachmann and Dapol (Black Label?).

I know that none will be highly rated for haulage but I'm thinking more of how well they capture the 'look' of the original, as exemplified by the above pictures.

Finally, no - of course, you don't have a 'condition', just a healthy fascination of and love for the prototype!

Best regards,

John.

 

PS The "search" function is useful, of course! I just found an early discussion from around Feb 2017 (page c.580) but I'd still like to know how they all compare (please!)

They're not from a book, John,

 

But several have been used in BRILL and others will be used. 

 

RTR A4s in OO? My opinions, of course.

 

Current Hornby; the best by a long way. 

 

Tender-drive Hornby; awful, but will pull a house down! 

 

Bachmann; old tooling (derived from the Trix/Lilliput model of yore). Tender not very good at all. More powerful than Hornby's current model. 

 

Dapol. Everything for the DCC-ite (at a price). Is lamped up for express passenger trains only. 

 

Hornby-Dublo/Wrenn; best left to the collectors.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for your concise summary, Tony, it was just what I wondered.

I must admit, I am being drawn to the eastern side of the country more and more.

Cheers!

John.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that experience of the many A4s tried on Grantham would put the Bachmann versions (few tried) above the Hornby loco-drive China-made versions (many tried) in the power stakes. Possibly the opposite, with the Hornby locos certainly having greater speed potential with a load.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, gr.king said:

I'm not sure that experience of the many A4s tried on Grantham would put the Bachmann versions (few tried) above the Hornby loco-drive China-made versions (many tried) in the power stakes. Possibly the opposite, with the Hornby locos certainly having greater speed potential with a load.

Are the Grantham Bachmann A4s those with older split chassis, Graeme?

 

My more recent experience is that the latest Bachmann A4 chassis is very powerful. More powerful (in terms of haulage capacity) than the more-recent Hornby equivalents.

 

I wouldn't give the old Bachmann A4 chassis layout room. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Tony,

 

If I may be so bold as to say, it looks to me re the ‘dip’ at the barrow crossing that it is rather that the length of track/rail before it has lifted a bit, making a hump, the sleepers being proud of the ballast. It might be that it looks more pronounced if the end of the barrow crossing is just where there happens to be a rail joint so it gives here. 

 

Although it’s true photography can be very cruel at times I do find it’s an invaluable tool for checking whether things are okay like this in this age of digital when multiple shots are so relatively easy and low cost. Remember the days of Polaroid backs for view cameras to check things before taking a ‘proper’ shot? 

 

Izzy

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the Golden Age A4 (60027), notwithstanding the errors with the tender detailing, what is going on with the running plate 'curve' and the boiler bands having differing levels of prominence - as you said for over £1,000 I would expect more, in fact I would expect perfection.

 

Glenn

Edited by mattingleycustom
spelling errors
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something a bit smaller , short videos of my recent build a 3D body with a scratch built chassis of the ex NER Petrol Inspection Car . 

 

 

 

Edited by micklner
  • Like 10
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Are the Grantham Bachmann A4s those with older split chassis, Graeme?

 

My more recent experience is that the latest Bachmann A4 chassis is very powerful. More powerful (in terms of haulage capacity) than the more-recent Hornby equivalents.

 

I wouldn't give the old Bachmann A4 chassis layout room. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good point. The only Bachmann A4s I've seen on Grantham are the older split-chassis variety as far as I'm aware. I'd completely forgotten that a new chassis had been introduced, at notably increased cost, to go with the now rather outdated chunky body moulding and fantasy tender.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/08/2019 at 11:45, Tony Wright said:

The recent comments about 'dips in the track' set my mind working (as usual, slowly!) with regard to how uncompromisingly-cruel model railway photography can be. I suppose all photography can be 'cruel' (I'm reminded of an occasion one day when a parent questioned me as to why the school photograph of her daughter made her look fat, particularly in the face. I declined to comment, and fought back a giggle), but just when I think I'm getting somewhere with my modelling, the poor building and errors are revealed in crystal clarity.

 

Just to show that the 'dip' isn't quite as bad as it appears in that earlier shot, I've taken a few more photos this morning.................

 

From a similar viewpoint to the one of the A4 posted yesterday, I agree the dip is apparent, but not so pronounced because that 'dodgy' van (the fourth vehicle in the train) is not on it. Look closely, that same van does lean forward. 

 

That leaning-forward van is more apparent in tight perspective (vans with dodgy suspension were not unknown on the prototype).

 

However, take a close look at that new V2 I've built. The footplate under the cab is not parallel to the central footplate section at all and the cab rainstrip is not parallel with the eaves! See what I mean about 'cruel' photography? 

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I've become a fan of the dip. Perfection - even (or perhaps especially) in models of LNER locomotives - would destroy the illusion.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mattingleycustom said:

Re the Golden Age A4 (60027), notwithstanding the errors with the tender detailing, what is going on with the running plate 'curve' and the boiler bands having differing levels of prominence - as you said for over £1,000 I would expect more, in fact I would expect perfection.

 

Glenn

Good evening Glenn,

 

I must admit, I hadn't taken much notice of the 'features' you've observed, but they're even more pronounced in this shot of the Golden Age MERLIN heading the Down 'Elizabethan'. It would appear to have only three cladding bands on the boiler!

 

771102650_Elizabethan02.jpg.9d9959bfe61d2b895709652290139443.jpg

 

Looking back, I can't understand why I bought it. In fairness, because I provided pictures, I receive a discount which took it to just under £1,000.00 (still a substantial amount). This was ten years ago, when the retail price was around £1,200.00 (or very near). I never use it, and it cost me more to have the DCC nonsense removed.

 

Ah well, we live and learn. 

 

The proprietor once took me to task, claiming I was 'easier' on the Hornby A4 when I first reviewed it than I was on his. When I pointed out that his was ten times more in price than the Hornby one, the correspondence ceased. 

 

There's no doubt that they're very well-finished, and it you want an opening 'cod's mouth', an inside cranked axle, middle connecting rod and working conjugated gear then there'll be a price. But that much? 

 

Are they still available?  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having not long returned from a most-pleasant weekend at the Loughborough Show, may I please thank all the organisers for putting on such a fine event? 

 

It seems attendance was up, and most traders seemed happy. 

 

Mo and I made a modest amount for CRUK from my fiddling with models and selling donated items. One of those items was an old Wills 'Flatiron', mounted (as designed) on a Tri-ang 'Jinty' chassis. After a clean, pick-up adjustment and oiling, it ran very well. I put a price of £40.00 on it. It was well-painted in plain black.

 

One very pleasant chap said he was interested, but it 'wasn't finished'. He was right, inasmuch as the buffer beams needed painting red and it needed lettering/numbering. I said such things were a doddle, but he said it was too much. Not the price, but too much for him to contemplate doing. He left. 

 

A question crossed my mind. Is this now 'typical' of 'modelling' today? Where a participant in the hobby thinks it's beyond him/her to complete such easy tasks as applying paint and transfers?  

 

He returned some two hours later, and then bought it. His wife/partner had told him that he'd regret not picking up such a bargain, and told him to finish it! Good for her!

 

As is typical now at many shows, the trade held little interest to me. However, on one second-hand stall I found a part-built Model Loco Black Five, complete with Portescap motor and an untouched, complete DJH 'Britannia'. I bought the pair for £130.00. The Black Five (having been superglued together), simply 'came apart in my hands'!  

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chatting to a trader at Telford, I mooted that the rtr LBSC Terrier (in Stroudley improved engine green) would have generated sales of his kits.  Nope, not one!  And this is 7mm!

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Having not long returned from a most-pleasant weekend at the Loughborough Show, may I please thank all the organisers for putting on such a fine event? 

 

It seems attendance was up, and most traders seemed happy. 

 

Mo and I made a modest amount for CRUK from my fiddling with models and selling donated items. One of those items was an old Wills 'Flatiron', mounted (as designed) on a Tri-ang 'Jinty' chassis. After a clean, pick-up adjustment and oiling, it ran very well. I put a price of £40.00 on it. It was well-painted in plain black.

 

One very pleasant chap said he was interested, but it 'wasn't finished'. He was right, inasmuch as the buffer beams needed painting red and it needed lettering/numbering. I said such things were a doddle, but he said it was too much. Not the price, but too much for him to contemplate doing. He left. 

 

A question crossed my mind. Is this now 'typical' of 'modelling' today? Where a participant in the hobby thinks it's beyond him/her to complete such easy tasks as applying paint and transfers?  

 

He returned some two hours later, and then bought it. His wife/partner had told him that he'd regret not picking up such a bargain, and told him to finish it! Good for her!

 

As is typical now at many shows, the trade held little interest to me. However, on one second-hand stall I found a part-built Model Loco Black Five, complete with Portescap motor and an untouched, complete DJH 'Britannia'. I bought the pair for £130.00. The Black Five (having been superglued together), simply 'came apart in my hands'!  

Sadly the average 'Joe Public' can rarely see beyond cosmetic issues with models. Those who are prepared to tinker with a model are in the minority, and becoming rarer.

Edited by davidw
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.