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

10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

(Snip) Expresses/excursions lamped-up as pick-up goods trains? Or a local lamped-up as a light engine? Or, no lamps at all! Which, I wonder, is worse? Though the photographs are good, doesn't the photographer know these things? Does he not know they're so wrong? If he did know, why not mention it? Then take 'correct' pictures. 

(snip)

Regards,

 

Tony. 


Is it the photographers job/duty/responsibility to address those or similar issues though?
It’s reasonable for them to ensure stock is on the track, and cleaned of dust etc, but personally I’m not convinced of the argument for ‘correcting’ things like lamps or train formations for example. They may not be equipped with such technical knowledge anyway. I can see a valid case where correcting details has merit if the article deals with a specific subject, eg lamps or train formations, but not if they’re recording a layout illustration article. With the layout piece the photographers are showcasing what the modeller has produced for good or bad, rather than a stylised, improved version of their work.

Edited by PMP
  • Like 4
  • Agree 3

Share this post


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

Which leads me on (in a somewhat tangential manner) to the current issue of Railway Modeller (which, as usual, is a damn good read). In it, in the 'Railway of the Month' feature I find I'm mentioned. Apparently there's a 'Tony Wright school of accuracy' (though I taught for at least half of my 40+ year professional career, I never had my own school!). At first I was rather flattered (in a pompous sort of way?), assuming that it was a 'compliment', until I noted the lamps on the locos in the pictures. In almost every picture, whoever put the lamps on the locos belongs to the 'Tony Wright school of inaccuracy'! Expresses/excursions lamped-up as pick-up goods trains? Or a local lamped-up as a light engine? Or, no lamps at all! Which, I wonder, is worse? Though the photographs are good, doesn't the photographer know these things? Does he not know they're so wrong? If he did know, why not mention it? Then take 'correct' pictures. 

What is the Railway of the Month, Tony. If it's an S&D layout, the S&D had their own locomotive lamp code which lasted, I believe, to the end in 1966.

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, PMP said:


Is it the photographers job/duty/responsibility to address those or similar issues though?

 

In my experience (admittedly a few years ago) once an article has been submitted to the model railway press it can be subject to extensive revision by the publisher to fit the available space and pagination, without the author having further sight of the work until publication.  It is not unknown for photo captions to be transposed in error, and content emphasis to be inadvertently changed.

 

The editors role should be to ensure that the published content meets the standards required by the publication.  So something like incorrect lamping has to be present on the original model, it’s image captured by the photographer, these subsequently being screened/approved by the editor for publication... 

 

Good practice would be for the article’s author to have sight of the finished copy after the editor and page setters have done their job, but this doesn’t always happen.  

 

So so in my view, ultimate responsibility for inaccuracies being published lies jointly with the submitting modeller/author and the editor, rather than the photographer.

 

 

 

Edited by Chamby
Emphasis of a point.
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, PMP said:


Is it the photographers job/duty/responsibility to address those or similar issues though?
It’s reasonable for them to ensure stock is on the track, and cleaned of dust etc, but personally I’m not convinced of the argument for ‘correcting’ things like lamps or train formations for example. They may not be equipped with such technical knowledge anyway. I can see a valid case where correcting details has merit if the article deals with a specific subject, eg lamps or train formations, but not if they’re recording a layout illustration article. With the layout piece the photographers are showcasing what the modeller has produced for good or bad, rather than a stylised, improved version of their work.

If I'm taking pictures, I see it as my job, Paul.

 

I recently photographed a layout where a passenger train was running with no brake van/guard's compartment. 'If I put that on, it won't fit into the fiddle yard' was the response to my observation. I took the shot, but cropped off the rear of the train! 

 

With regard to the incorrect lamps in the pictures in question, I don't think I'd have mentioned it had I not been personally cited in the article, with a comment about 'accuracy'. I assume the photographer knows about such things, though his own layout is devoid of such niceties, so, perhaps, not. 

 

Craig Tiley (a brilliant photographer, writer, artist and modeller - one of RM's staff) recently wrote an article in the magazine explaining all about the various headlamp codes, so shouldn't some effort have been made (especially as it's Railway of the Month) to at least get the lamps' aspects right? 

 

I agree entirely that the photographs should show a layout 'as it is', warts and all, but the lamps in question appear to be just fixed on the lamp brackets, and are capable of being moved (the angle of one suggests this). Surely it wouldn't have taken too long remove one lamp from one loco and add it to another, for each picture (as appropriate), especially as one is fixed to the tender of a loco hauling a brake van! The 'van does have a tail lamp as well. 

 

As for an 'improved' version of what a modeller has produced, isn't that something to aspire to? Especially with regard to something as easy as displaying the correct lamps.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Clem said:

What is the Railway of the Month, Tony. If it's an S&D layout, the S&D had their own locomotive lamp code which lasted, I believe, to the end in 1966.

Definitely not S&D Clem.

 

On the line to Bridlington it would seem.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Chamby said:

 

In my experience (admittedly a few years ago) once an article has been submitted to the model railway press it can be subject to extensive revision by the publisher to fit the available space and pagination, without the author having further sight of the work until publication.  It is not unknown for photo captions to be transposed in error, and content emphasis to be inadvertently changed.

 

The editors role should be to ensure that the published content meets the standards required by the publication.  So something like incorrect lamping has to be present on the original model, it’s image captured by the photographer, these subsequently being screened/approved by the editor for publication... 

 

Good practice would be for the article’s author to have sight of the finished copy after the editor and page setters have done their job, but this doesn’t always happen.  

 

So so in my view, ultimate responsibility for inaccuracies being published lies jointly with the submitting modeller/author and the editor, rather than the photographer.

 

 

 

Good morning Phil,

 

Interestingly, I recently pointed out an error in a picture (taken by the same photographer) of a layout in the RM where a splitting signal had both boards 'off' (would a train divide; one half taking one route and the other half the other?!), and my letter was published. 

 

Steve Flint and his most-able team were really cross for not spotting it (and, like all good journalists, admitted it), and the layout's builder/owner hadn't seen the picture beforehand (or at least not the page proof). Either I wouldn't have taken the shot in the first place, or asked for the signal's aspect (they were non-working) to be altered - the arms were fixed with Blu-Tak. 

 

Are my recent observations those of a zealot? I wonder. At a time when the profile of the hobby has been raised in all forms of the media, are we (the generic 'we') not in danger of losing our ability to 'observe the prototype'? Many of the layouts featured of late show no observation of the real thing at all - in fact quite the opposite - yet they went on to become 'winners'. One could argue that the aims and objectives were totally different from what us 'modellers' might aspire to, but if 'inaccuracies' become more and more the norm, then how is the next generation of modellers (without which, the hobby has no future!) going to understand and achieve 'realism'? 

 

I see it as a responsibility.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 7

Share this post


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

Are my recent observations those of a zealot? I wonder.

 

No, they are the observations of someone who has always gone out of his way to help other modellers improve their efforts and achieve a high standard; also you are always responsive to any constructive criticism others level at your own modelling and will invariably do your level best to correct them.

 

Dave

  • Like 2
  • Agree 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Phil,

 

Interestingly, I recently pointed out an error in a picture (taken by the same photographer) of a layout in the RM where a splitting signal had both boards 'off' (would a train divide; one half taking one route and the other half the other?!), and my letter was published. 

 

Steve Flint and his most-able team were really cross for not spotting it (and, like all good journalists, admitted it), and the layout's builder/owner hadn't seen the picture beforehand (or at least not the page proof). Either I wouldn't have taken the shot in the first place, or asked for the signal's aspect (they were non-working) to be altered - the arms were fixed with Blu-Tak. 

 

Are my recent observations those of a zealot? I wonder. At a time when the profile of the hobby has been raised in all forms of the media, are we (the generic 'we') not in danger of losing our ability to 'observe the prototype'? Many of the layouts featured of late show no observation of the real thing at all - in fact quite the opposite - yet they went on to become 'winners'. One could argue that the aims and objectives were totally different from what us 'modellers' might aspire to, but if 'inaccuracies' become more and more the norm, then how is the next generation of modellers (without which, the hobby has no future!) going to understand and achieve 'realism'? 

 

I see it as a responsibility.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony,

 

I know that, for you and many of like mind, the provision of correct lamps is a major issue. However, there are also many, including me, who simply do not see it as such.

 

What offends my own eye is the failure to provide  appropriate freight stock. It's amazing how many modellers, who go to great lengths to ensure that their passenger train make-ups accord with the individual prototype trains, (and provide correct lamps on their locos), are content to compile their freight trains with whatever wagons come readily to hand, regardless of correct period and location.

 

I do not condemn them for doing so, nor do I assume that they do it out of ignorance; it is merely an expression of their personal interests and priorities. Those of us of a certain age are all too aware that life is finite, and that the chances of achieving our modelling ambitions are slim, without becoming obsessed with detail which is not important to us.

 

I recall my days as a trainspotter - which so many of us are trying to recreate in miniature - and we paid very little attention to the loco lamp code. We could see what type of train was approaching; we didn't need to refer to the lamp codes in the front of our ABCs !

 

So, tolerance is all  - if the modeller has priorities other than loco lamps that's his business. There are far worse anomalies published in the model press which get passed over without the slightest comment.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited by cctransuk
  • Like 2
  • Agree 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Brinkly said:

Going back to weathering techniques, I repainted this trio of Bachmann 16 ton mineral wagons using Ammo by Mig products. 

 

This was my first go at weathering, however, I think the results are quite convincing so far. I need to finish weathering the chassis and look at adding powders but they are coming along. 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_11/IMG_2741.jpg.f61f96961a26ee927fa5f7035925ede7.jpg.adf8aa38c932616cf340568d0a72c670.jpg

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_11/IMG_2742.jpg.e10dce607f57a2d8f8a73a66ab7c18df.jpg.066f5ef533ee11b61cc1cae8ba9d51ac.jpg

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_11/IMG_2743.jpg.db901e38cd7b9a368f5ad11fb331c19c.jpg.2dccd701e2b956bc02d3d0dfb56746bb.jpg

 

 

 

 

Best wishes

 

Nick

Great stuff, Nick,

 

Thanks for showing us..............

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Tony,

 

I know that, for you and many of like mind, the provision of correct lamps is a major issue. However, there are also many, including me, who simply do not see it as such.

 

What offends my own eye is the failure to provide  appropriate freight stock. It's amazing how many modellers, who go to great lengths to ensure that their passenger train make-ups accord with the individual prototype trains, (and provide correct lamps on their locos), are content to compile their freight trains with whatever wagons come readily to hand, regardless of correct period and location.

 

I do not condemn them for doing so, nor do I assume that they do it out of ignorance; it is merely an expression of their personal interests and priorities. Those of us of a certain age are all too aware that life is finite, and that the chances of achieving our modelling ambitions are slim, without becoming obsessed with detail which is not important to us.

 

I recall my days as a trainspotter - which so many of us are trying to recreate in miniature - and we paid very little attention to the loco lamp code. We could see what type of train was approaching; we didn't need to refer to the lamp codes in the front of our ABCs !

 

So, tolerance is all  - if the modeller has priorities other than loco lamps that's his business. There are far worse anomalies published in the model press which get passed over without the slightest comment.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

I'm in total agreement, John, 

 

Except in your assumption that all modellers are male.

 

I also agree about our trainspotting 'observations'. Of course I paid the lamps no heed, then. However, if I'm using prototype pictures to make-up my trains  - whatever their status - (and shouldn't we all?), then there are the lamps. For all to see. 

 

I just go back again to my name being mentioned in the article in question, with regard to 'accuracy'. And, 'accurate' lamps are high on my list of priorities.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Share this post


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

In almost every picture, whoever put the lamps on the locos belongs to the 'Tony Wright school of inaccuracy'! Expresses/excursions lamped-up as pick-up goods trains? Or a local lamped-up as a light engine? Or, no lamps at all! Which, I wonder, is worse?

 

Running a Local Passenger lamped up as a Light Engine was prototypical on some Branches of the GWR / BR(W) . Confirmed by my Desktop Picture of BR(W) 1453 leaving Aylesbury Town on a Princes Risborough Passenger Train.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


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

What is the Railway of the Month, Tony. If it's an S&D layout, the S&D had their own locomotive lamp code which lasted, I believe, to the end in 1966.

 

Hello Clem

 

The 'normal' Class A express lamp code was carried occasionally, particularly if the Pines Express headboard or some other 'special headboard' was carried.

 

Brian

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Pannier Tank said:

 

Running a Local Passenger lamped up as a Light Engine was prototypical on some Branches of the GWR / BR(W) . Confirmed by my Desktop Picture of BR(W) 1453 leaving Aylesbury Town on a Princes Risborough Passenger Train.

Thanks for that, but was that the norm? 

 

I've found prototype shots which show anomalous lamps (normally within station limits), and one shot with no lamp at all! However, talking with professional signalmen (yes, I'm afraid, all men) I've been told that if a train carries incorrect lamps (or no lamps at all), then it should be stopped, and corrected. 

 

I've just commented in BRILL on some pictures taken at Durham in 1960, where, in one of them, a V3 is running light engine in reverse, yet carries its 'rear lamp' above the drawhook - the position for a light engine running forwards. It's probably involved in a shunting move (within station limits), and, as long as it carries a lamp at both ends, the signalman lets it be. That certainly used to be the case during my observations at Chester where (usually) ex-GWR locos would reverse on the triangle, and the three signal boxes controlling the movement allowed the locos to change direction, without the fireman altering the lamps on each leg. 

 

I go back again to observation of prototype pictures. In every shot I've used for reference in the building of Little Bytham and its trains, the locos carry the correct lamps, in the correct position for the job they're doing. 

 

Yes, there's no smoke on the model, it's also narrow gauge, no passengers ever get on or off the stoppers and it's only the trains which move. Trains with the correct lamps!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Pannier Tank said:

 

Running a Local Passenger lamped up as a Light Engine was prototypical on some Branches of the GWR / BR(W) . Confirmed by my Desktop Picture of BR(W) 1453 leaving Aylesbury Town on a Princes Risborough Passenger Train.

 

The Cornish Riviera no less, on the St Ives branch....

 

(Photo from my collection, photographer unknown, passed to me by a friend. Will remove if necessary).

 

IMG_5867.jpeg.295bedfba50157153a041fd75abd12bd.jpeg

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TrevorP1 said:

 

The Cornish Riviera no less, on the St Ives branch....

 

(Photo from my collection, photographer unknown, passed to me by a friend. Will remove if necessary).

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_11/IMG_5867.jpeg.295bedfba50157153a041fd75abd12bd.jpeg

That, in my view is remarkable. Can we assume it's unusual?

 

Please, do not remove it. 

 

 

Returning to 'photographer responsibility', the shot below is the header picture for a layout article in the next issue of BRM. 

 

934464760_JohnEarth12.jpg.cec44fe95a0519c31737990b9e86c3ea.jpg

 

It's a first 'proper' layout, built by a guy returning to the hobby in retirement, and it's rather well done in my view. The loco carries the correct lamps (Class F) for an unfitted freight, but look at the front coupling. It's a common occurrence on a model where it's got twisted around the centre lamp bracket. I processed the shot (including cutting out all that footbridge lattice work!) and never noticed it, until I saw the page proof. It's been left as it is (does it detract too much?), but I really should have noticed this on taking the picture and re-shot it. 

 

The following shot is one I rejected, and re-took, but only after I'd wasted all that time in taking out the background! Why didn't I notice the problem straight away?

 

1402085054_13317FlyingScotsman.jpg.58b78ca1130078f52cf834ad0c578b07.jpg

 

It's obviously on LB, but look at the daft angles of the lamps! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point
  • Like 5
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

That, in my view is remarkable. Can we assume it's unusual?

 

I really must get on with some work today but I picked up the first book I could find with photos of the St Ives branch and there are not one but two photos showing incorrect head codes.

 

One is a six coach passenger train carrying 'light engine'. The other is another passenger train, this time carrying lamps for 'empty coaching stock' although admittedly the train in question has a significant proportion of empty coaches in preparation for an outbound working. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

The following shot is one I rejected, and re-took, but only after I'd wasted all that time in taking out the background! Why didn't I notice the problem straight away?

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_11/1402085054_13317FlyingScotsman.jpg.58b78ca1130078f52cf834ad0c578b07.jpg

 

It's obviously on LB, but look at the daft angles of the lamps! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

The thing I spotted first was the signal growing out of the chimney! Many an otherwise decent prototype picture spoilt by that effect ...

 

I tend to agree with the observations of others on here re there being worse things than not fitting lamps (an omission), such as absurd train formations or both arms of a junction ('splitting') signal in the 'off' position (both errors). As you might expect, I am often drawn to signalling errors - a favourite (NOT!) of mine is where the builder has used LOWER quadrant arms (such as GWR) and affixed them in the UPPER position (or similar). Once again, it would not take too much review of prototype pictures to avoid such glaring errors.

 

Now - I must be away to my workbench to paint up my latest batch of ModelU lamps prior to Peterborough ...

Edited by LNER4479
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't what know what fraction of layouts are of the terminus to fiddleyard type, but going by those of friends and acquaintances, I know of far more of them than continuous run layouts. Not all of them are stations (some are industrial in nature) but none of them allow the engines to be turned before going out again, so IF there are headlamps, and if they're not physically changed, they will be wrong half the time. I don't know if I've ever seen lamps between changed during an operating session, and since my own preference is for totally hands-off operation if at all possible, I wouldn't want it done anyway.

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

I don't what know what fraction of layouts are of the terminus to fiddleyard type, but going by those of friends and acquaintances, I know of far more of them than continuous run layouts. Not all of them are stations (some are industrial in nature) but none of them allow the engines to be turned before going out again, so IF there are headlamps, and if they're not physically changed, they will be wrong half the time. I don't know if I've ever seen lamps between changed during an operating session, and since my own preference is for totally hands-off operation if at all possible, I wouldn't want it done anyway.

I noted the lamps changed on the locos arriving/departing at Buckingham as appropriate when Jesse and I saw it (and operated it) last week. The 'hand of God', obviously, but very impressive nonetheless.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Good evening David,

 

Just a few examples............................

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_11/15293337_4F43938.jpg.ed0982f616d9d63855525167935dcfa7.jpg

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_11/647102492_4Fscomplete27onlayout.jpg.97ff1d6a791d4003cb2abc475fce9d9c.jpg

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_11/2034749986_16XXSEFinecastbuiltbyTonyWright02.jpg.df7e768bd08d1c00b0fabe6e7d61012a.jpg

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_11/1937107521_600140nDownexpress.jpg.1a33c34d2f0dfdafa132802b26697752.jpg

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_11/690629475_ABSL1andNu-CastA5onlayout.jpg.411c175cc826c2471ed551c6d022832e.jpg

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_11/1644447050_HeljanO2modifications25.jpg.990d035e57b0dd3e37e8d36f317045d2.jpg

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_11/618369294_J696862604.jpg.2d7941a8fdd2e83cbe4b4b1ce6471129.jpg

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_11/870811210_K3modifications16.jpg.9e7f8c69e276c60f5c34c639d4fd2213.jpg

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_11/318979321_PlatformviewsK36182302.jpg.e944720a0fd1f10f80214c3240e83158.jpg

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_11/416230399_secondSEFJ6weathered03.jpg.591348976a0b0041a8088b698a8579c0.jpg

 

The 'plates need to be cut out very carefully, which leaves a white border (this was prototypical at times). I run a black 'Sharpie' around the exposed white edge, making sure that it doesn't 'bleed'. Beware of applying the 'plates before weathering - enamels will affect them. I apply them after weathering, and, if necessary, then give them the slightest wipe. 

 

They're thick enough not to need a backing plate (except on an A4 or the W1 - did either of the streamlined B17s have a BR front numberplate?), though if the model has one, just stick them on top with a tiny blob of PVA, applied on the end of a cocktail stick just drawn along the rear.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

Hi Tony

 

Thank you for the information and for posting the above photographs, very impressive indeed.

 

I spoke to Ian at Pacific Models this afternoon, a very helpful man and my order form and cheque are on their way to him.

 

Thank you again for your help and looking forward to replacing all my LNER Pacific's smokebox number plates in due course as I did not realise that the sheet contains smokebox number plates for all of the A1/A2/A3 and A4 Classes.

 

Regards

 

David

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, robertcwp said:

So far as I am aware, 9065 was the number allocated to what had been 1225 but it was not renumbered. However, in the absence of primary sources, this cannot be confirmed

The owner of the Dennis Seabrook Collection has loaned it to the LNER Society for digitisation, which is more or less complete, and cataloguing, which isn't.  There are about 4,000 images in the collection, the majority of which are portraits of ex-LNER and constituent carriages in the 1950s.  There are eight photographs of E1225E taken over a number of years.

 

The corridor side appears unaltered; the kitchen side has been modified as indicated by Robert, such that, reading from right to left, there are 14 panels between the second seating bay window, and the first kitchen window.

 

Most of the photographs show the earlier BR livery, with gas tanks amidships on either side; one photograph in the later livery shows battery boxes there.

 

All photographs show Gresley bogies of course, but HD at the kitchen end only throughout.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:
3 hours ago, Pannier Tank said:

 

Running a Local Passenger lamped up as a Light Engine was prototypical on some Branches of the GWR / BR(W) . Confirmed by my Desktop Picture of BR(W) 1453 leaving Aylesbury Town on a Princes Risborough Passenger Train.

Thanks for that, but was that the norm? 

 

Some BR(W) Branches used it regularly and not so on others; I don't know what determined when and where this operation was allowed.

 

Moretonhampstead Branch Trains used the Headcode for Auto Trains and ordinary Passenger Trains.

Edited by Pannier Tank
additional info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:The following shot is one I rejected, and re-took, but only after I'd wasted all that time in taking out the background! Why didn't I notice the problem straight away?


Cold day Tony? That peg growing out of the chimney needs the wire letting off a bit.... that’s a very good off....

 

Andy g

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, uax6 said:


Cold day Tony? That peg growing out of the chimney needs the wire letting off a bit.... that’s a very good off....

 

Andy g

 

It's obviously pleased to see the Flying Scotsman, Andy! Despite the loco's wonky lamps.

 

1555108510_A22onDownFlyingScotsman.jpg.e69515d2495c3cbe6ef6befec1bf367f.jpg

 

Now with the lamps corrected (though one is still a bit awry), that peg is still well 'off'. 

 

The mechanism for it actually failed this year, and Graham Nicholas kindly replaced it. 

 

1754161016_LBreplacement01.jpg.11bd7af43f088067da7b6bb6c488fcfd.jpg

 

It's certainly at a more natural angle in the 'off' position now. 

 

This shot will appear in the next issue of the RM. It shows how much progress has been made on things like the point rodding.

 

Now, I have a question. The vans/wagons in the yard will soon be in the process of being shunted by the pick-up freight loco. If they were left for any length of time (say, overnight on the prototype), might the outer ones be fitted with lamps with red aspects? Just a thought. If so, then I've committed the most-heinous of crimes!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 9
  • Funny 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.