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

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Nothing special? Not the most interesting train? It's probably the only time in recorded history that this bunch of cars was ever coupled together in this manner. 

 

It interests me, especially if I chose to build something like this (though it would not have run through LB).

 

I did look hard at those brackets. You're probably right, but why are the lamps perched so high up?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Morning Tony,

 

Nothing special, exactly. Pretty typical of this kind of train, a hodge podge of second class, or carriages designated as second class for the working. If you look at the formation its pretty straight forwards and fairly consistent with the CWN. The verity of types is also what you would expect at the time period that the photograph was taken.

 

It is a fact that BR failed consistently throughout most of the fifties to meet its own building programmes for MK1 carriages. It is also a fact that those compiling CWN's consistently overestimated the availability of MK1 carriages for Eastern region use in the late fifties. This is not a guesstimation, its simple facts. If the CWN specifies X and you don't have enough of X you had better find something else. Then consider that the further you get down the pecking order, the more likely it becomes that you are required to replace X with Y, Z and maybe a little Q. The point is, the photograph reveals the typical rather than the extraordinary. A caption, that emphasised how typical this kind of formation on this kind of working was and why, would be much better than 'wow, what and amazing set of carriages, isn't it special.' As an example, the likes of the PV Thompson had long since been cascaded from their original status, were else would you expect to see such carriages?

 

On B1 lamp brackets. There seems to be two types that are associated with the two types of electric light fitted, or not fitted as the case may be. The earlier lights seem to be the most likely to have been removed from the locomotives. Both types of bracket elevated the lamp above the light, more so in the case of the box lights as opposed to the originals that looked more like early car indicators. Non of the B1's as far as I can tell had a conventional lamp bracket that would allow the lamp to sit right down on the platform.

Share this post


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

You're not asking for much, Andrew,

 

As far as I know, the book(s) you demand have never been published. Or, because of what you insist upon, WILL never be published. 

 

However, I'm entirely in agreement that there are too many railway books printed with captions that are just nonsense. 

 

And, what's wrong with a little bit of 'best-guessing', as long as that's made clear in the caption. I'd never state it as definitive fact (or is that tautology?). For instance, John Isherwood made a very valid observation about my caption to the 'Fife Coast Express' picture. It's the first time I've ever seen a shot of the rake in maroon, and (I would suggest) it's not lined. This is substantiated by the picture in the book I cited, and my access to the (unpublished) pictures. Yet, I've never seen the lack of lining ever mentioned before in any publication/official document. The 'water is muddied' by the fact that the ex-Silver Jubilee dining triplet WAS lined in maroon, and any horizontal stainless steel beading was painted over. Yet, again, I've never seen that recorded.

 

I'm basing my conclusions on observations. Observations of photographs (from years ago). Out of necessity, some conclusions will have to be (educated?) guesswork. 

 

And, when you build a model, do you use dozens of pictures of the individual carriage/loco you're making? Top, bottom, sides, ends, underneath, three quarter front, three quarter rear, etc? I try to, but I've never come across umpteen pictures, all taken on the same day, from every single angle of an individual item - not even works' shots. So, at least to me, some educated guesses have to be made. 

 

Recently, I've gone through pictures and found a 'Princess Royal' with ROUND front buffers, an Ivatt 2-6-0 2MT with OVAL front buffers (were they swopped at CREWE?) and a Scottish Director with one round and one oval buffer on its front beam. Yet, I've never seen these recorded before. How can one describe such things without 'guessing' how they came about?

 

I admire your zeal!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Afternoon Tony,


I'm asking for people to work it out before they publish. There is nothing wrong with putting best - guessing in front of peer review for checking first. Out of choice, I don't publish much myself. That which I have, I have always put before peer review prior to publishing. If there is a problem, it can be corrected. After publishing, right or wrong, it's there for eternity.

Share this post


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

There's also an increasing trend towards:

 

- anthropomorphising the locomotive (never the rest of the train!), as in "the loco breathes a sigh of relief as it breasts the summit".

- I don't know the word for this but it's stuff like "little did they know that in ten years' time all this woudl be covered by a supermarket car park".

- Including personal opinion, as in "what a shame that this class was withdrawn at the expense of the xxx type".

- Presenting supposition as fact. This is, I think, what Tony is driving at and when I spot it it makes me doubt most other things that are written in the same publication.

 

I'm sorry to say that all these are becoming more common in one of the monthly magazines that claims to be a leading repository for British railway history (paraphrased). I still buy it, though, as the quality and selection of the photographs outweighs my annoyance with the words.


Nail, head, great big hammer!

 

Increasingly I find myself tossing books to the other end of the sofa whilst shouting “rubbish “! To keep in touch I take one of the preservation magazines but I mostly just look at  the ‘headlines’ and scan the photos because I can’t bear to read it. 

 

Or am I just getting old...

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cunningham's Law states that the best way of obtaining correct information is to publish wrong information. (This law was formulated with the internet in mind.)

 

There are two options:

  • Publish and be damned;
  • Be damned for not publishing.
  • Like 5
  • Funny 4

Share this post


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

Morning Andrew,

 

That was a very early morning for you!

 

I admire your perfectionism and it certainly shines through in your models, but I think that this is a classic case of 'the best being the enemy of the good'. Railway modellers are often not good at compromise (I've had similar exchanges with Steve Banks!) but I feel that some educated guess work can help others make further strides in identifying the full data which we would all like - rather like the responses to Tony's original post have done. So let's take the B1 at Peterborough as an example. A little research has identified the date and the sun position tells us that it's morning, but more research is unlikely to ever identify exactly what train it was on, so we have two choices of types of caption:

1. The 'Wright' approach: B1, 61079 approaching Peterborough from the south on mixed rake of stock on Saturday 19th July 1958. Notably the rake includes a pressure-ventilated FK (the third car), ex-one of the post-War 'Scotsman' sets. It also includes three BR Mk.1s, plus a Thompson CK, as well as Gresley stock, including a late-build all-door TK.  The loco is shedded at Immingham, so it's reasonable to assume that it's probably a morning summer Saturday train from the southern end of the GN line to the East Lincs line (probably Skegness or Cleethorpes). Prior to the introduction of the Brits, B1s had these expresses.

2. The perfectionist approach: B1, 61079 approaches an unknown location hauling an unknown train on an unknown date. The loco was built in September 1946 and withdrawn in June 1962.

 

I'm exaggerating for effect and with a little effort some of the data could be established beyond reasonable doubt as this exchange proves. But one sees too many captions like the second one and I, for one, know which I prefer. I can then use my own judgement to fill in any gaps as I see fit.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Andy,


Your identification of the carriages in point one is not so good, this is why it is so important not to publish and be damned but work out what it is you are saying before publication. Peer review would prevent a lot of the nonsense in book captions.


The choice is not between the two options that you put forwards. A third caption could be written that would be better than either option one or two.

 

I don't expect people to agree with me. The sorry state of many (but not all) railway books is testiment to that.

Edited by Headstock
add full stop

Share this post


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

 

Andy,


Your identification of the carriages in point one is not so good, this is why it is so important not to publish and be damned but work out what it is you are saying before publication. Peer review would prevent a lot of the nonsense in book captions.


The choice is not between the two options that you put forwards. A third caption could be written that would be better than either option one or two.

 

I don't expect people to agree with me. The sorry state of many (but not all) railway books is testiment to that.

I agree with peer review. In fact that's one thing this thread is very good at. All I'm saying is that if at the end of the peer review you don't have a definitive answer, give your best guess and qualify it as such.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

give your best guess and qualify it as such.

 

Quite so. Assertion without qualification or evidence is little better than fake news.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Changing the Subject somewhat, here are some pictures of my latest completed project.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_12/2E14EAC4-8731-4B92-9C47-4FE3BC7C5A99.jpeg.0a0fbffe818c6aab41f3450f88024b60.jpeghttps://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_12/38B213DE-C7C0-40D5-945E-1218998196A9.jpeg.03ebc68468396773496888388d36bfcc.jpegIt’s a GCR bogie fish van built from a WSM kit. It was a bit of a struggle as it was made from thick brass which needed to be laminated together. It certainly tested my soldering iron’s power!


Only a few of these made it through to nationalisation, and I believe they were relegated to parcels traffic by that stage.  So I’ve finished it in LNER livery without fish branding and will use it in a mixed van train. 
 

I had to guess a bit (tut tut!) so I’ve probably made some mistakes. Any comments welcome.

 

Andy

 

Nice model , looking at Tatlow, the vans were 15 tons not 12, the only photo shows the one oblong blackboard (which should be grey)  only in the last right hand  panel on the upper left corner, so quite a a good guess at the layout !!

Share this post


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

I agree with peer review. In fact that's one thing this thread is very good at. All I'm saying is that if at the end of the peer review you don't have a definitive answer, give your best guess and qualify it as such.

 

Andy,

 

Under such circumstances and if I was part of the peer review process, my advice to you would be not to publish but go away and do some more research. My advice would not be, ignore me and publish anyway! If you then did publish anyway, you will have ignored the peer review process, that's pretty damming if you cock up. Any mistakes that you may make as a result will be a long, long time in print and will be pointed out by hoards of Internet users for the next fifty years. Publishing and printing books is still a fairly expensive process and is not that easy to edit, make sure you get it right.

 

I remember when Steve Banks came under a great deal of pressure to best - guess the carriage workings of the GE section for LNER PT&F, all for the sake of completeness and in fact not relevant to the format of the book anyway. Thankfully, he was brave enough to stand up and say no, the information is not available to give an accurate account . He also recognized that once in print, even if a statement was qualified as opinion or guesstimate, it had a very high likelihood as been taken as fact. Books have a very long lifetime compared to Internet boards. Once wrong information is out there in print, ten or twenty years from now, long after the authors death, it can still have a negative impact or be mocked for an extended period of time.

 

P.s. your GC bogie van has scrubbed up rather well, did peer review have an effect?

Edited by Headstock
add full stop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TrevorP1 said:


Nail, head, great big hammer!

 

Increasingly I find myself tossing books to the other end of the sofa whilst shouting “rubbish “! To keep in touch I take one of the preservation magazines but I mostly just look at  the ‘headlines’ and scan the photos because I can’t bear to read it. 

 

Or am I just getting old...

I rarely buy new railway books because of (a) the reasons above and (b) I'm a tightwad.  So many books are published which are little more than three-quarter views of locomotives either standing at or approaching platform ends.  You can see almost nothing of the wider railway so for research purposes they are pretty useless.  However it is hardly a new phenomenon; even the great Eric Treacy filled the frame with the train, used the exact same location hundreds of times and made almost no records of his shots. Most captions in his photographic volumes show that the publisher has identified the loco, location and sometimes the train service but quite frequently can't narrow down the year it was taken.  To name three great railway photographers, Treacy captured the train, Priestley captured the railway and Gifford captured Great Britain at the end of an era.

Edited by Northmoor
wrong word
  • Like 3
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Back to some fiddling (modelling?). And trying to put together a bunch of buildings to potentially form a sub-assembly and because I wanted to make sure that they fitted a specifically sized area. The problem is that each building was made individually at different times and with various elements of compression and simplification. Bringing them together is rather like herding cats or trying to make a changing jigsaw although the footprint (pen) is a fixed size. But I'm nearly there . . . .  

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_12/DSC_8781.JPG.c5df781fdc72e1d219b24645f5ec9d8f.JPG

 

Next is to add the 3D aspect. The left edge slopes up but only for the building on that roadside, while the front/right edge and centre remains flat.

 

 

That is looking excellent Grahame; looking forward to seeing Kehoes on the corner. We have been known to put a building through the bandsaw on CF when it didn’t quite fit...

Tim

Edited by CF MRC
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CF MRC said:

That is looking excellent Grahame; looking forward to seeing Kehoes on the corner. We have been known to put a building through the bandsaw on CF when it didn’t quite fit...

Tim

 

Thanks. Although still lots to do, detail to add and dirtying down.

 

I've not yet tackled Kehoes (the corner cobblers) as it has changed quite a bit over the years and I was looking for suitable period details. Currently it seems to be promoting vaping:

 

2099921568_K1.jpg.24620ed70d6e744ededd7d14e715939a.jpg

 

But I've found this that seems to be from about the right period and will use that as the basis for finishing, branding and detailing:

 

966001634_PicKehoes.jpg.f2e42e1d73b1fe22e9169ab4ab86c670.jpg

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

Thanks. Although still lots to do, detail to add and dirtying down.

 

I've not yet tackled Kehoes (the corner cobblers) as it has changed quite a bit over the years and I was looking for suitable period details. Currently it seems to be promoting vaping:

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_12/2099921568_K1.jpg.24620ed70d6e744ededd7d14e715939a.jpg

 

But I've found this that seems to be from about the right period and will use that as the basis for finishing, branding and detailing:

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_12/966001634_PicKehoes.jpg.f2e42e1d73b1fe22e9169ab4ab86c670.jpg

 

looks a bit recent to me ... another angle

14908660063_60fddda646_b.jpg.b172aaf314405fa82c87c663d7f6fb5d.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly, although those dirty red/brown canopies may have been there a long time. You can see them (just a corner on the right) in this earlier view although that's probably not quite early enough (note the cars and red road lines) but at least before the second railway bridge was added. 

 

1073390_07eb5fe3.jpg.20040f3be7edc78e107028354bf19ff1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. I have got that pic. It's a great period photo but a little too early for me as the old two storey post office (in front of the hospital ward block building) is there which was demolished before the era l'm  trying to model. Note the copper on point/car control duty with the white sleeves (there doesn't appear to be traffic lights at the junction then), the cast concrete street lights (since replaced with steel posts) and the lack of dropped kerbs at the crossing. And the 'white cup cafe'. Plus the corner cobblers was Kehoes then as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the Silver Jubilee twin brake first in maroon, I have a Colour Rail slide which shows it very clearly having no lining but the metal beading intact under the windows, and coaching stock roundels on both cars. Image is dated 1961.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to the B1 at Peterborough, this is the booked formation for the Saturday 7.50 am King's Cross-Skegness in 1958:

 

49183366238_2ac1880d21_b.jpg0750-KGX-Skeg_Summer-Saturday-1958 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

The symbol by the two CK(3-3) indicates transverse corridor (ie Thompson) stock. 

 

By 1958, the pressure ventilated CKs were no longer needed in the prestige services. There was no CK in the Elizabethan and the Flying Scotsman was largely BR Standard stock, hence they would have been displaced elsewhere. As the side-door Gresley and BR Standard SKs had eight compartments, it probably didn't matter too much which ones were in the train.

  • Like 5
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I look forward to the "Book of Backgrounds" in which each caption discusses everything to be seen in the photo except the locomotive, which is to be regarded as a nuisance obscuring the view of some interesting feature. One might, at a pinch, give the locomotive number and date so the reader can, if they wish, look up full details of its condition elsewhere.

A humorous observation, and thank you.

 

I think as long as a locomotive is the principal item in an image, then it should take precedence over all other ancillary stuff when writing a caption. It should be described, details pointed out and, where possible, what work it's on. My B1 book(s) will, after all, be about B1s. However, that said, once the pertinent points have been mentioned (based on evidence), then whatever else (of interest) in an image should be commented on in my view. 

 

For instance, I've just been looking through a (generally) good book on a particular Gresley class. In one shot, the loco is briefly mentioned and then, because he's in the foreground, we're told a 'railwayman crosses the tracks'. Without (I hope) offending those with visual impairment, it's absolutely axiomatic! Yet, an interesting piece of arcane rolling stock in the background isn't even mentioned. 

 

Despite it being an interesting title, no publisher (as yet) has asked me to write The Book of Backgrounds.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Changing the Subject somewhat, here are some pictures of my latest completed project.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_12/2E14EAC4-8731-4B92-9C47-4FE3BC7C5A99.jpeg.0a0fbffe818c6aab41f3450f88024b60.jpeghttps://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_12/38B213DE-C7C0-40D5-945E-1218998196A9.jpeg.03ebc68468396773496888388d36bfcc.jpegIt’s a GCR bogie fish van built from a WSM kit. It was a bit of a struggle as it was made from thick brass which needed to be laminated together. It certainly tested my soldering iron’s power!


Only a few of these made it through to nationalisation, and I believe they were relegated to parcels traffic by that stage.  So I’ve finished it in LNER livery without fish branding and will use it in a mixed van train. 
 

I had to guess a bit (tut tut!) so I’ve probably made some mistakes. Any comments welcome.

 

Andy

 

Great stuff, Andy,

 

What might one call this approach? Pragmatic? Personal? Creative? The product of educated guesswork? A layout van? Unique?

 

Thanks for posting.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

Having consulted Harris, I concur with your analysis of the photo and with the caption, and apologise for doubting you.

 

The point that I was trying to make is that, nowadays, far too many photo captions make bold statements that are in no way supported by the information contained in the photo itself. When those statements are based on research elsewhere there should be some indication of the fact, so that the reader can have confidence in the veracity of the caption.

 

Of course, a great many captions, especially in magazines, are just plain wrong - or as we plain-speaking Lancastrians would say - b*ll*cks !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Good evening John,

 

I've said it before, but never feel the need to apologise to me. 

 

Constructive, critical observations to comments in posts on this thread make it what it is in my view. 

 

Some years ago on here, I made a statement about my approach to modelling prototype locations; in my case, of course, an ECML prototype. My approach was to never attempt to model a main line location in less than 30' (in 4mm). It results (fact) in far too tight visible curves at the ends. Someone took it as implied criticism of his approach (in less than 30'), and his 'followers' (for want of a better description) were rather upset about it, as was he. 

 

Statements and opinions should be challenged from time to time, and (if I may?), it's up to the likes of yourself to keep those challenges coming.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

Morning Tony,

 

Nothing special, exactly. Pretty typical of this kind of train, a hodge podge of second class, or carriages designated as second class for the working. If you look at the formation its pretty straight forwards and fairly consistent with the CWN. The verity of types is also what you would expect at the time period that the photograph was taken.

 

It is a fact that BR failed consistently throughout most of the fifties to meet its own building programmes for MK1 carriages. It is also a fact that those compiling CWN's consistently overestimated the availability of MK1 carriages for Eastern region use in the late fifties. This is not a guesstimation, its simple facts. If the CWN specifies X and you don't have enough of X you had better find something else. Then consider that the further you get down the pecking order, the more likely it becomes that you are required to replace X with Y, Z and maybe a little Q. The point is, the photograph reveals the typical rather than the extraordinary. A caption, that emphasised how typical this kind of formation on this kind of working was and why, would be much better than 'wow, what and amazing set of carriages, isn't it special.' As an example, the likes of the PV Thompson had long since been cascaded from their original status, were else would you expect to see such carriages?

 

On B1 lamp brackets. There seems to be two types that are associated with the two types of electric light fitted, or not fitted as the case may be. The earlier lights seem to be the most likely to have been removed from the locomotives. Both types of bracket elevated the lamp above the light, more so in the case of the box lights as opposed to the originals that looked more like early car indicators. Non of the B1's as far as I can tell had a conventional lamp bracket that would allow the lamp to sit right down on the platform.

'As an example, the likes of the PV Thompson had long since been cascaded from their original status, were (sic) else would you expect to see such carriages?'

 

Andrew,

 

I really must beg to differ here!

 

What would you consider to be the most prestigious train running on the ECML in the summer of 1958? If I were asked that question, my reply would be the non-stop, 'The Elizabethan'. 

 

Next question, what were the two sets (ten cars) made-up of? The answer, PV Thompson stock - apart from the pair of BR Mk.1s to/from Aberdeen. Yes, there were occasional substitutes (a Gresley RF in one set after 1959/'60) but up until Deltic haulage (in 1962, when the train last ran), a fair bit of the Thompson PV stock was in it. 

 

What's really unusual about the Thompson PV car in the picture in question is that it's still in carmine/cream. By 1958, very rare.

 

And, what about the Thompson PV car(s) in 'The Flying Scotsman'' or 'The Heart of Midlothian'  or 'The Talisman'(s) of the same period? 

 

Thompson PV stock cascaded in 1958? What a come-down, to the 'lowly' status of being in the Lizzie, the Scotsman, the Heart and the Talisman(s). Not only that, during the winter months in the late-'50s, that same stock which ran only in the summer non-stop was used in both Scotsman rakes. 

 

So, in answer to your question, a Saturday (Seconds-only?) summer train to remote Skeggy is one of the last sets I'd expect to see a Thompson PV car in! The point is, in this case, the photograph reveals the extraordinary. Isn't that interesting? 

 

May I respectfully suggest that, in future, you look for evidence?

 

Thanks for the comments on the B1 brackets. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Going back to the B1 at Peterborough, this is the booked formation for the Saturday 7.50 am King's Cross-Skegness in 1958:

 

https://flic.kr/p/2hWaBg50750-KGX-Skeg_Summer-Saturday-1958 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

The symbol by the two CK(3-3) indicates transverse corridor (ie Thompson) stock. 

 

By 1958, the pressure ventilated CKs were no longer needed in the prestige services. There was no CK in the Elizabethan and the Flying Scotsman was largely BR Standard stock, hence they would have been displaced elsewhere. As the side-door Gresley and BR Standard SKs had eight compartments, it probably didn't matter too much which ones were in the train.

Many thanks-any information on Lincolnshire carriage workings is most welcome.

Share this post


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

 

Afternoon Tony,


I'm asking for people to work it out before they publish. There is nothing wrong with putting best - guessing in front of peer review for checking first. Out of choice, I don't publish much myself. That which I have, I have always put before peer review prior to publishing. If there is a problem, it can be corrected. After publishing, right or wrong, it's there for eternity.

Good evening Andrew,

 

I always ask others to proof what I've written before publication. Others whose knowledge and opinions I respect (I must send the B1 stuff to you as I write it). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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.