Wright writes.....

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Some more recent model railway photography I've seen is incredibly lurid ...

 

Lurid - can't think of a better word to describe what at times seem to be caricatures of the model in question.

 

If the publication prefers images that appear to be AI-generated, they might as well cut out photography altogether!

 

So much of magazine publication seems to be based on 'cos-we-can' - regardless of whether it is desirable or even visually attractive.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

Lurid - can't think of a better word to describe what at times seem to be caricatures of the model in question.

 

If the publication prefers images that appear to be AI-generated, they might as well cut out photography altogether!

 

So much of magazine publication seems to be based on 'cos-we-can' - regardless of whether it is desirable or even visually attractive.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

It isn't just the reproduction of photographs either. The whole design and layout of most magazines smacks of "We have the technology and we know how to use it" rather than any consideration for the readership, who must be vastly made up of blokes, often grumpy blokes, of a certain age rather than teenagers.

 

Little things like text that is visible against a decent background rather than printed all over a photo, or follows on in a logical arrangement, seem to have been lost in a barrage of "Interesting fact" and "Did you know?" boxes.

 

"The layout builder used to work in an office and designed the layout in his lunch breaks". "The baseboards are made from wood". That sort of thing!

 

My goodness I am turning into a grumpy old bloke!

 

 

[robmcg]

With current discussion about depth-of-field and other aspects of photography as applied to model railways, like you Tony I have no great interest in 'stacking', but as many will know I photograph a lot of models and change images greatly.  It's not modelling but perhaps I may be permitted a few comments?

 

I experimented with a basic Canon point-and-shoot camera around 2006 and was impressed by the depth-of-field from the lens, F8 and an 8MP sensor.

Then around 2013 I bought a 'half frame' Canon EOS-M which permitted via a 2:1 adaptor the use of my old glass Canon lenses. It came with an 18-55mm lens, effectively I guess 35-110 in 35mm or full frame parlance. I think is is about 16MP and I do all my photos in JPEG and PSP6 (Paint Shop Pro 6 'working' format).

 

 

Importantly, it is small enough to offer a viewing-point similar to real railways, and has F32 as its smallest aperture, with that set as priority and delayed release a shutter speed of 15 secs is common. (30 secs max from memory). I just use any available support for the camera, folded tissue papers allow angle of view to be fine-tuned before exposure. It has a fairly large viewing screen on its rear face.  I think the camera was first made around 2012 and it, or similar, may still be available.

 

The camera has multitudinous menus most of which aren't relevant to me, but has auto colour balance and a tungsten light filter and other useful things, single point focussing among them, or variable average setting of exposure in a chosen area.

 

I think it a fine camera even if a compromise between full-frame and low-end small-sensor cameras. As many know, I do a lot of post-exposure editing with Paint Shop Pro. With F32 it has pretty good depth-of-field.

 

Here below examples of a recent RTR subject, the upcoming Bachmann V2, with Tony's excellent photo of three evaluation samples, and my picture of a 2004 Bachmann V2 with all its shortcomings, unedited but for colour balance and lightened a tad. The latter taken with the EOS-M in room light, with a little tungsten lamp fill-in. 10 secs at F29, ISO 100.

 

 

I hope you don't mind the above cropped  picture Tony, will remove if asked.

 

 

Of course I can make the engine look rather better with editing or picture-making, but that's not modelling, is it.  

 

Thanks Tony for your excellent thread, and endless creative energy. 

 

For what it's worth I photographed everything from age 8yrs with a Kodak box camera, then progressed to 6x6 film cameras,  no lessons but a good public library. Worked successfully as a press photographer for a short time in the 1970s, published a book of street photos, and am quite comfortable with most cameras. Tony's Nikons are lovely! 

Edited December 27, 2019 by robmcg
typos, addition. and correction to date

[grahame]

52 minutes ago, robmcg said:

 It came with an 18-55mm lens, effectively I guess 35-110 in 35mm or full frame parlance. I think is is about 16MP and I do all my photos in JPEG and PSP6 (Paint Shop Pro 6 'working' format).

 

 

Apparently the EOS-M camera has a standard Canon APS-C sensor so the crop factor would be 1.6 (the Nikon APS-C is a little larger with a crop factor of 1.5) which is the figure you would multiply the focal length of a lens designed for a full frame camera (crop factor 1.0) to determine the effect of the reduced angle of view/and effective focal length of lens (telephoto power?). However, and I'm not sure, but I'd have thought that a lens specifically designed for the camera (the 18-55mm) would be marked with the actual focal length for the sensor/camera rather than need to have any calculated factor applied to it - but I could be wrong.

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, robmcg said:

With current discussion about depth-of-field and other aspects of photography as applied to model railways, like you Tony I have no great interest in 'stacking', but as many will know I photograph a lot of models and change images greatly.  It's not modelling but perhaps I may be permitted a few comments?

 

I experimented with a basic Canon point-and-shoot camera around 2006 and was impressed by the depth-of-field from the lens, F8 and an 8MP sensor.

Then around 2013 I bought a 'half frame' Canon EOS-M which permitted via a 2:1 adaptor the use of my old glass Canon lenses. It came with an 18-55mm lens, effectively I guess 35-110 in 35mm or full frame parlance. I think is is about 16MP and I do all my photos in JPEG and PSP6 (Paint Shop Pro 6 'working' format).

 

 

Importantly, it is small enough to offer a viewing-point similar to real railways, and has F32 as its smallest aperture, with that set as priority and delayed release a shutter speed of 15 secs is common. (30 secs max from memory). I just use any available support for the camera, folded tissue papers allow angle of view to be fine-tuned before exposure. It has a fairly large viewing screen on its rear face.  I think the camera was first made around 2012 and it, or similar, may still be available.

 

The camera has multitudinous menus most of which aren't relevant to me, but has auto colour balance and a tungsten light filter and other useful things, single point focussing among them, or variable average setting of exposure in a chosen area.

 

I think it a fine camera even if a compromise between full-frame and low-end small-sensor cameras. As many know, I do a lot of post-exposure editing with Paint Shop Pro. With F32 it has pretty good depth-of-field.

 

Here below examples of a recent RTR subject, the upcoming Bachmann V2, with Tony's excellent photo of three evaluation samples, and my picture of a 1994 Bachmann V2 with all its shortcomings, unedited but for colour balance and lightened a tad. The latter taken with the EOS-M in room light, with a little tungsten lamp fill-in. 10 secs at F29, ISO 100.

 

 

I hope you don't mind the above cropped  picture Tony, will remove if asked.

 

 

Of course I can make the engine look rather better with editing or picture-making, but that's not modelling, is it.  

 

Thanks Tony for your excellent thread, and endless creative energy. 

 

For what it's worth I photographed everything from age 8yrs with a Kodak box camera, then progressed to 6x6 film cameras,  no lessons but a good public library. Worked successfully as a press photographer for a short time in the 1970s, published a book of street photos, and am quite comfortable with most cameras. Tony's Nikons are lovely! 

Thanks Rob,

 

You'll never have the need to remove any of your pictures from this thread, or any you've altered. 

 

Image manipulation is 'not actual modelling' in my opinion, but what you do is very clever. But what constitutes 'not actual modelling'? Some of the following perhaps...................?

 

Pictures of completely unaltered RTR/RTP items?

 

Pictures where all the work on show is that of others and is really just the property of the photographer?

 

Pictures so manipulated in Photoshop that they completely alter the appearance of the actual model(s) in the picture?

 

Pictures of models 'improved' by Photoshopping - telegraph poles straightened, or gaps underneath buildings filled-in, etc, etc,? 

 

Photoshopped smoke and weathering? 

 

Real life backgrounds superimposed in/behind a model railway picture?

 

I'm not saying I agree with everything in the list above (there could be several more instances to add to it), but to offer it as food for thought.

 

Regarding the picture of your V2 above, you say it's 'unaltered' in the main (or is that just the picture?). It looks well-weathered (weathered well). Did you do that? If so, it looks good. However, what intrigues me most are the nine-spoke pony wheels. They can't be the originals, surely? 

 

Meanwhile, all best wishes for the New Year, and please keep on contributing.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Anglian]

I use Photoshop professionally and always avoid saving using the Jpeg format. I always work with tiffs or psd files to maintain quality. Due to the nature of the work I do I might be working on an image file all day saving it every few minutes. Repeated saving using the Jpeg format does slowly degrade the image. You probably won't notice with a couple of 'saves' but over a long retouching session, the results of which are then printed, this can be a problem. I first became aware of this when viewing a 'wet proof' of various tweaked versions of the same image. A bit of research and a chat with the printer saw me ditch Jpeg format. The only benefit of Jpeg files is the relatively small file size, when transferring files electronically.

 

Edited December 26, 2019 by Anglian

[robmcg]

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Rob,

 

You'll never have the need to remove any of your pictures from this thread, or any you've altered. 

 

Image manipulation is 'not actual modelling' in my opinion, but what you do is very clever. But what constitutes 'not actual modelling'? Some of the following perhaps...................?

 

Pictures of completely unaltered RTR/RTP items?

 

Pictures where all the work on show is that of others and is really just the property of the photographer?

 

Pictures so manipulated in Photoshop that they completely alter the appearance of the actual model(s) in the picture?

 

Pictures of models 'improved' by Photoshopping - telegraph poles straightened, or gaps underneath buildings filled-in, etc, etc,? 

 

Photoshopped smoke and weathering? 

 

Real life backgrounds superimposed in/behind a model railway picture?

 

I'm not saying I agree with everything in the list above (there could be several more instances to add to it), but to offer it as food for thought.

 

Regarding the picture of your V2 above, you say it's 'unaltered' in the main (or is that just the picture?). It looks well-weathered (weathered well). Did you do that? If so, it looks good. However, what intrigues me most are the nine-spoke pony wheels. They can't be the originals, surely? 

 

Meanwhile, all best wishes for the New Year, and please keep on contributing.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony, how does one render a steam locomotive starting a train on a bank, on a frosty morning, if not by buying an RTR Hornby Britannia, weathered, and painting the steam and smoke exactly as I remember the real thing in the 60s? 

 

Apologies for breaking my promise of 'no more'.

 

THIS is my modelling, well, buying models and really enjoying photographing/altering them.

 

 

 

And here below, having no doubt overstayed my welcome in some people's eyes, is BR V2 60834 again after some sympathetic editing.

 

 

 

Best wishes to all.

 

 

Edited December 27, 2019 by robmcg
bits and pieces

[Woodcock29]

Models I've built or substantially worked on this year included the following:e:

 

A Craftsman C12 bought unmade secondhand.  one of my first attempts at lining with Bob Moore Lining pen.

 

A Nucast D2

My old Bec D11, originally built in the mid 70s when I was about 20, subsequently upgraded in the 1980s and used this year with a bit more upgrading as a trial for the red lining - which on this is a combination of Bob Moore pen and a bow pen. I might get around to adding brake gear to the old Triang chassis it runs on which is now fitted with a Buhler motor with Ultrascale gears.  This year I knocked the top of the tender out and completely rebuilt that with correct water pick up arrangements even though the tender body is too wide. I also replaced the cast beading on the splashers with brass strip, the splashers having been increased in height back in the 1980s upgrade. It still needs to be glazed and have a crew fitted.

 

 

An upgrade of my original Craftsman C12 built in 1979. Additional details added such as vacuum and steam heat pipes along the valance, steel windshields in front of cab opening, new whistle, new buffers to suit the change of number to a loco shedded at Boston in the late 1930s, chassis overhaul, including new axle bearings, new Mashima motor, Comet gearbox and flywheel added. Lining with the Bob Moore pen - obviously that skill is still very much work in progress! 

 

 

A Bachmann O4/3 conversion which was actually done late last year but not photographed until now, using a WR ROD model, with the better footplate (correct length to wide section over cylinders and the bolt heads on front frames) and correct cab roof for the ROD versions (rear angle iron further forward). I decide to build one with a flowerpot chimney for something different. The chimney is a shortened Bachmann J11 chimney that was surplus after fitting a Robinson chimney to a J11 a few years ago.  Its had the my normal chassis upgrades - raised cylinders - realigned to centre of driving axle and pony truck set further back. I did another this year for a mate who has modelled Nottingham Victoria.

A rebuild of secondhand 51L or original D&S NB cattle wagon

 

 

A rebuild of a secondhand D&S NE fitted cattle wagon

Completion of a secondhand D&S GE horsebox, it probably should have vac pipes as well or instead of the Westinghouse pipes

 

Completion of a secondhand Parkside LNER Dia 5 Horsebox for my horsebox train 

Completion of a secondhand Chivers NE 4 wheel CCT , one of which I had been looking for, for quite some time.

 

A D&S GN 6 plank open.

 

All the above that are fitted with Kadees will run on Gavin Thrum's new layout based on Spilsby.

 

 I have worked on other stuff that I have probably forgotten about and am now building a Howlden triple articulated set from a D&S BT, C and T for Gavin's and my layouts.

 

Andrew

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, robmcg said:

 

Tony, how does one render a steam locomotive starting a train on a bank, on a frosty morning, if not by buying an RTR Hornby Britannia, weathered, and painting the steam and smoke exactly as I remember the real thing in the 60s? 

 

Apologies for breaking my promise of 'no more'.

 

THIS is my modelling, well, buying models and really enjoying photographing/altering them.

 

 

 

And here below, having no doubt overstayed my welcome in some people's eyes, is BR V2 60834 again after some sympathetic editing.

 

 

 

Best wishes to all.

 

 

Good morning Rob,

 

As I say what you do is very clever, and if that's what constitutes 'modelling' to you, and you derive satisfaction from it, then I'm not going to be 'critical'. 

 

'Tony, how does one render a steam locomotive starting a train on a bank, on a frosty morning, if not by buying an RTR Hornby Britannia, weathered, and painting the steam and smoke exactly as I remember the real thing in the 60s?'

 

My answer to that, quite bluntly, is you (the generic 'you') can't - with a caveat. That caveat being the use of the word 'render'. You have rendered an image, which, to some extent brings back personal memories, but it can never really capture the 'magic' of what it really was like. In just the same way that my own modelling (with friends) can never capture the sight, sound and smell of what those great days were like. 

 

But we all have different ways of enjoying this great hobby. My principal means of enjoyment is to actually 'make' models. Models of what I remember. They don't issue smoke (unless the motor's screwed!), the sound they make is not that of a real steam loco (though there is a satisfaction in hearing a complete train I've made travel through a scene with a reassuring 'murmur' from the mechanism and natural 'clatter' as metal wheels run on metal track) and they're only tiny. But actually making something which works (despite all the imagination needed - bucket loads of it!) is what I derive pleasure from. 

 

I also derive pleasure from my photography, though not through 'excessive' manipulation. 

 

 

I showed this shot earlier, and I'll explain why I rejected it. It's phony! Immediately after passing beneath the (incorrect) girder bridge, in reality the five lines beneath it go around a sharp, right-handed right-angle bend to go on-/off-scene. They certainly don't go straight as I've 'painted' them in in Photoshop, even though, on the prototype, they did! That I made/modified all the locos and rolling stock in this picture is the only interest in it to me. 

 

Does it 'work' as a picture? Perhaps some might think so, but the amount of 'cheating' is too much for me. It's not 'true'. 

 

 

This is one picture I didn't reject, because the cheating is less so. Beyond the overbridge, the lines go around a left-hand, tight right angle bend, and all I've done is to white-out below the arches. Again, my interest in this is photographing what I've actually made/modified. 

 

As I say, each to their own. My approach to model-making/photography is personal, and I'm not advocating it to anyone else (nor, I hope, dictating what others should or shouldn't do). That approach is (where I can) I must have made/modified it myself (a loco or item of rolling stock), as well as I can (though I concede, top-quality painting is not my strength) and photograph it as 'realistically' as I can. I'm not trying to make 'it' anything it isn't. 

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Models I've built or substantially worked on this year included the following:e:

 

A Craftsman C12 bought unmade secondhand.  one of my first attempts at lining with Bob Moore Lining pen.

 

A Nucast D2

My old Bec D11, originally built in the mid 70s when I was about 20, subsequently upgraded in the 1980s and used this year with a bit more upgrading as a trial for the red lining - which on this is a combination of Bob Moore pen and a bow pen. I might get around to adding brake gear to the old Triang chassis it runs on which is now fitted with a Buhler motor with Ultrascale gears.  This year I knocked the top of the tender out and completely rebuilt that with correct water pick up arrangements even though the tender body is too wide. I also replaced the cast beading on the splashers with brass strip, the splashers having been increased in height back in the 1980s upgrade. It still needs to be glazed and have a crew fitted.

 

 

An upgrade of my original Craftsman C12 built in 1979. Additional details added such as vacuum and steam heat pipes along the valance, steel windshields in front of cab opening, new whistle, new buffers to suit the change of number to a loco shedded at Boston in the late 1930s, chassis overhaul, including new axle bearings, new Mashima motor, Comet gearbox and flywheel added. Lining with the Bob Moore pen - obviously that skill is still very much work in progress! 

 

 

A Bachmann O4/3 conversion which was actually done late last year but not photographed until now, using a WR ROD model, with the better footplate (correct length to wide section over cylinders and the bolt heads on front frames) and correct cab roof for the ROD versions (rear angle iron further forward). I decide to build one with a flowerpot chimney for something different. The chimney is a shortened Bachmann J11 chimney that was surplus after fitting a Robinson chimney to a J11 a few years ago.  Its had the my normal chassis upgrades - raised cylinders - realigned to centre of driving axle and pony truck set further back. I did another this year for a mate who has modelled Nottingham Victoria.

A rebuild of secondhand 51L or original D&S NB cattle wagon

 

 

A rebuild of a secondhand D&S NE fitted cattle wagon

Completion of a secondhand D&S GE horsebox, it probably should have vac pipes as well or instead of the Westinghouse pipes

 

Completion of a secondhand Parkside LNER Dia 5 Horsebox for my horsebox train 

Completion of a secondhand Chivers NE 4 wheel CCT , one of which I had been looking for, for quite some time.

 

A D&S GN 6 plank open.

 

All the above that are fitted with Kadees will run on Gavin Thrum's new layout based on Spilsby.

 

 I have worked on other stuff that I have probably forgotten about and am now building a Howlden triple articulated set from a D&S BT, C and T for Gavin's and my layouts.

 

Andrew

What great stuff, Andrew,

 

You have been busy. It's actually real, personal and self-reliant modelling. Just what Wright Writes is all about!

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[stewartingram]

Changing subject rapidly and completely, I thought this was the best thread to ask the question. Does anyone know when the last silver/grey A4 lost that livery?

 

Stewart

[JamieR4489]

1 hour ago, stewartingram said:

Changing subject rapidly and completely, I thought this was the best thread to ask the question. Does anyone know when the last silver/grey A4 lost that livery?

 

Stewart

Silver King was repainted blue in August 1938, according to BRDatabase. 2510 was repainted in May and 2509 and 2512 were repainted in 1937.

 

Hope this helps,

Jamie

[Bucoops]

1 hour ago, stewartingram said:

Changing subject rapidly and completely, I thought this was the best thread to ask the question. Does anyone know when the last silver/grey A4 lost that livery?

 

Stewart

Bittern was repainted from her Silver Link guise in around 2001

[46444]

On ‎24‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 15:15, Tony Wright said:

 

 

 

This is another acquisition this year from a deceased modeller's estate. Again, it was started (a Hornby conversion), and all I've done is build the chassis, complete/detail the bodywork and ask Geoff Haynes to paint it for me. It still needs front steps (an oversight), but it's another useful layout loco. I doubt if Ivatt 2MT 2-6-0s ran regularly on the M&GNR (if at all?), but this one was shedded at Nottingham, and Nottingham-based locos worked daily as far as Kings Lynn, so, maybe?

 

Thanks Tony for all your wonderful photographs of LB.

 

The above photos of the modified Hornby Ivatt 2MT stand out for me. Would you be able to take some more photos of this loco?

 

Scale wise the bodyshell compares favourably with the current Bachmann incarnation. I detailed and repainted one for a friend many years ago but kept the original chassis. However I was tempted to shorten the tender length or find a spare Bachmann tender but in the end the remit was for a repaint essentially.

 

Here is a my finished example and blog entry:

 

 

As you are probably aware Comet do the front steps.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

[mdvle]

19 hours ago, grahame said:

However, and I'm not sure, but I'd have thought that a lens specifically designed for the camera (the 18-55mm) would be marked with the actual focal length for the sensor/camera rather than need to have any calculated factor applied to it - but I could be wrong.

 

The lenses are marked with what the lens actually is, for the simple reason that you can't guarantee what camera the lense will be mounted on - or what lens you mount on your camera.  Most cameras are backwards compatible with existing lenses when introduced where possible to minimize body upgrade costs.

[Tony Wright]

5 hours ago, 46444 said:

 

Thanks Tony for all your wonderful photographs of LB.

 

The above photos of the modified Hornby Ivatt 2MT stand out for me. Would you be able to take some more photos of this loco?

 

Scale wise the bodyshell compares favourably with the current Bachmann incarnation. I detailed and repainted one for a friend many years ago but kept the original chassis. However I was tempted to shorten the tender length or find a spare Bachmann tender but in the end the remit was for a repaint essentially.

 

Here is a my finished example and blog entry:

 

 

As you are probably aware Comet do the front steps.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

Thanks for that Mark,

 

Your model looks very impressive.

 

Whoever had started the Hornby Ivatt conversion, I don't know his name; in fact, the only thing I know for certain about him is that he's dead! 

 

He'd done a fair bit, including shortening the tender (why was the original too long? Tender-drive?) and taking off most of the moulded-on detail on the body. It didn't come with the original Hornby chassis, but he'd started a Comet chassis for it, which I completed, making sure it runs really sweetly. I also added handrails and other separate fittings to complete it, and then Geoff Haynes painted it. 

 

I'll get (or find) some suitable front steps (I've used the Comet ones in the past on a Bachmann Fairburn for a friend), and then it'll be complete.

 

I'll take some further pictures for you.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Another splendid day's running, when two friends popped over to see Little Bytham. For one, it's a first time, for the other, another visit among many. Both thoroughly enjoyed themselves.

 

However, there were three 'problems'. One, an express derailed at speed! Not possible, surely? It was caused by a lowered coupling of my make resting on the towing vehicle's 'goalpost', effectively lifting the towed car off the rails. An instant fix, after adjustment. Two, a brand new A1 I've built had its bogie derail. Investigate, and the screw shackle had got caught on the bogie's guard irons. Another instant fix. Three, not such an instant fix! Yet another Veissman signal motor failure (at least the seventh/eighth in five years). Graham Nicholas (that great model signal builder/installer) will investigate. I think it's time to junk the lot! 

 

On a more positive note, the older friend brought along an Oxford Rail N7 he's not long bought from TMC.

 

 

 

TMC did the weathering on it. Very neat indeed, but perhaps a little too 'uniform'? Still, at least better than some of the blodges and splodges one sees passing for weathering! 

 

It's a beautifully-detailed loco, and works perfectly. Being a visitor, it didn't need to carry lamps, nor lose that awful coupling. 

 

The younger friend took some moving footage, which he'll put on here in time. 

 

Edited December 27, 2019 by Tony Wright
typo error

[PupCam]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Three, not such an instant fix! Yet another Veissman signal motor failure (at least the ninth in five years). Graham Nicholas (that great model signal builder/installer) will investigate. I think it's time to junk the lot!

 

 

Having had a lot of experience using servos for R/C aircraft over the last 30 odd years and now given the very low cost and the numerous and very flexible ways of driving them are R/C servos not the obvious solution these days?  

 

Personally I'd use an Arduino to drive them as they are very cheap and flexible but that route needs a certain ability and knowledge of coding so a "Ready to Play" solution from MERG or Megapoints etc might be more appropriate?   Although specific brands and models of servos come and go R/C servos certainly won't be disappearing anytime soon unlike the more traditional, proprietary and fra more expensive model railway point and signal motors and the results (IMHO) are far superior and capable of being far more realistic (e.g. easily programmed bounce).

 

Alan B

[cctransuk]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

... (why was the original too long? Tender-drive?) ...

 

In order to use the existing Stanier tender chassis, I'd guess; (the motor was in the loco).

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Tony Wright]

19 minutes ago, PupCam said:

 

Having had a lot of experience using servos for R/C aircraft over the last 30 odd years and now given the very low cost and the numerous and very flexible ways of driving them are R/C servos not the obvious solution these days?  

 

Personally I'd use an Arduino to drive them as they are very cheap and flexible but that route needs a certain ability and knowledge of coding so a "Ready to Play" solution from MERG or Megapoints etc might be more appropriate?   Although specific brands and models of servos come and go R/C servos certainly won't be disappearing anytime soon unlike the more traditional, proprietary and fra more expensive model railway point and signal motors and the results (IMHO) are far superior and capable of being far more realistic (e.g. easily programmed bounce).

 

Alan B

Thanks Alan,

 

Tony Gee fixed up the operation of the pair of M&GNR signals using servos. Their performance has been exemplary. 

 

Graham Nicholas installed the Veissmann (not sure about the spelling) signal-operating dampened solenoids after using them with some success on Grantham. Their operation is really smooth. However, the failure rate (near 100% in terms of numbers installed over the last five years, though not all have failed - two have failed at least twice). That's seven or eight replacement motors needed in that time. Far too high a number. They've all been installed properly, with any friction absolutely minimised. He's done a fine job, but been let down by the motors it would seem. 

 

Comet/Wizard/MSE no longer stocks them because so many have failed and been returned. It could be we're asking them to do a job they're not designed for - operating hand-built semaphore signals. Perhaps the German proprietary signals don't have anywhere near the same resistance. 

 

I think servos (with the help of Tony Gee) will be the answer for operating Bytham's main line signals. With so many visitors lined up to see LB, I can't keep on apologising for failed signals. As I wrote in my RM piece of late, working semaphores are an imperative.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

2 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

In order to use the existing Stanier tender chassis, I'd guess; (the motor was in the loco).

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Thanks John,

 

Is that what Hornby did with regard to the little Ivatt?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[46444]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks for that Mark,

 

Your model looks very impressive.

 

Whoever had started the Hornby Ivatt conversion, I don't know his name; in fact, the only thing I know for certain about him is that he's dead! 

 

He'd done a fair bit, including shortening the tender (why was the original too long? Tender-drive?) and taking off most of the moulded-on detail on the body. It didn't come with the original Hornby chassis, but he'd started a Comet chassis for it, which I completed, making sure it runs really sweetly. I also added handrails and other separate fittings to complete it, and then Geoff Haynes painted it. 

 

I'll get (or find) some suitable front steps (I've used the Comet ones in the past on a Bachmann Fairburn for a friend), and then it'll be complete.

 

I'll take some further pictures for you.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Thanks Tony, 

 

The gentleman who did the conversion on your Ivatt did a very nice job.

 

The Comet chassis along with the painting and lining lifts it to another level. 

 

Like I said in my blog entry, some of these older models can be the basis of creating something that can easily mix in with contemporary RTR.

 

I look forwards to further photos of 46502.

 

Cheers, 

 

Mark

Edited December 27, 2019 by 46444

[Denbridge]

40 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Alan,

 

Tony Gee fixed up the operation of the pair of M&GNR signals using servos. Their performance has been exemplary. 

 

Graham Nicholas installed the Veissmann (not sure about the spelling) signal-operating dampened solenoids after using them with some success on Grantham. Their operation is really smooth. However, the failure rate (near 100% in terms of numbers installed over the last five years, though not all have failed - two have failed at least twice). That's seven or eight replacement motors needed in that time. Far too high a number. They've all been installed properly, with any friction absolutely minimised. He's done a fine job, but been let down by the motors it would seem. 

 

Comet/Wizard/MSE no longer stocks them because so many have failed and been returned. It could be we're asking them to do a job they're not designed for - operating hand-built semaphore signals. Perhaps the German proprietary signals don't have anywhere near the same resistance. 

 

I think servos (with the help of Tony Gee) will be the answer for operating Bytham's main line signals. With so many visitors lined up to see LB, I can't keep on apologising for failed signals. As I wrote in my RM piece of late, working semaphores are an imperative.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Another benefit of servos,  if used with a suitable controller, such as megapoints, is the facility to recreate signal bounce.

[Woodcock29]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Another splendid day's running, when two friends popped over to see Little Bytham. For one, it's a first time, for the other, another visit among many. Both thoroughly enjoyed themselves.

 

However, there were three 'problems'. One, an express derailed at speed! Not possible, surely? It was caused by a lowered coupling of my make resting on the towing vehicle's 'goalpost', effectively lifting the towed car off the rails. An instant fix, after adjustment. Two, a brand new A1 I've built had its bogie derail. Investigate, and the screw shackle had got caught on the bogie's guard irons. Another instant fix. Three, not such an instant fix! Yet another Veissman signal motor failure (at least the seventh/eighth in five years). Graham Nicholas (that great model signal builder/installer) will investigate. I think it's time to junk the lot! 

 

On a more positive note, the older friend brought along an Oxford Rail N7 he's not long bought from TMC.

 

 

 

TMC did the weathering on it. Very neat indeed, but perhaps a little too 'uniform'? Still, at least better than some of the blodges and splodges one sees passing for weathering! 

 

It's a beautifully-detailed loco, and works perfectly. Being a visitor, it didn't need to carry lamps, nor lose that awful coupling. 

 

The younger friend took some moving footage, which he'll put on here in time. 

 

The N7 looks good. However, I believe Oxford have made the chimney, dome and safety valves too tall on this round-top firebox version. According to the Isinglass drawing the flowerpot chimneys fitted to N7s were 1'6" compared to the original GE chimneys which were 1' 10 1/4" . The chimney on the model appears to be the same height as GE chimney?

 

I did a review of the previous LNER version for our BRMA journal The Clearing House - I'll send you a copy Tony by email for interest.

 

Andrew

[Clem]

9 minutes ago, Woodcock29 said:

The N7 looks good. However, I believe Oxford have made the chimney, dome and safety valves too tall on this round-top firebox version. According to the Isinglass drawing the flowerpot chimneys fitted to N7s were 1'6" compared to the original GE chimneys which were 1' 10 1/4" . The chimney on the model appears to be the same height as GE chimney?

Yes it looks like they have amalgamated the two chimneys. Some of the earlier class members retained the tall chimney but it was parallel and not tapering and stepped like the one on the model. But then I'm very picky about about chimney accuracy.