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

Danish Kroner wheels - Heljan model ?

 

As to book photo captions my Christmas present was Colin Giffords superb book "Transition" - Captions ? -mainly just a location, month & year. Perhaps that is all that is required  ?

 

Brit15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time I had an article about operating Buckingham published, I was astonished to see a caption to a photograph that had been changed from what I had written to say that Peter Denny recognised the potential of using RTR items on the layout. It was almost as if the idea that RTR wasn't playing a part somewhere was too much for them to cope with and they had to do something to pander to their RTR obsessed readership.

 

It was a photo of the 3 GWR Clerestories, which he had converted to EM gauge and altered slightly to look more GCR. I spoke to him about them and he told me that it was a lot of work to end up with inaccurate models and he wished that he hadn't bothered and wouldn't be doing any more.

 

Anybody reading that caption and presuming that I had written it would have thought that I had lost the plot completely! 

  • Like 3
  • Friendly/supportive 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

As to book photo captions my Christmas present was Colin Giffords superb book "Transition" - Captions ? -mainly just a location, month & year. Perhaps that is all that is required  ?

 

Brit15

 

Indeed; all his books are like that. 

 

Sometimes simplicity helps to focus on the actual image and make the reader think for themselves. Though at other times and in different contexts, extended captions (if accurate!) add greatly to one's enjoyment and knowledge of what's being shown in an image.

Edited by Peter Kazmierczak
  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

It was your articles in Model Railway Constructor about coaching stock over 40 years ago that set me off, even before Keith Parkin's book was published.

 

Carriage workings are not a great deal of use on their own. You need corroborative evidence from elsewhere, such as photos or logs, although even then it's risky as photo dates are often inaccurate and the few spotters who noted carriages probably made some mistakes too.

 

A recent example of where I have put the cat amongst the pigeons is on the Coronation Scot thread, where I asserted that the whole train was turned after each journey. Few, if any, believed me until none of them could find a photo of the train in regular service with the first class at the front in either direction.

 

By Golly - Logic on a Model Railway forum. . . 

 

Andy

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


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

 

Indeed; all his books are like that. 

 

Sometimes simplicity helps to focus on the actual image and make the reader think for themselves. Though at other times and in different contexts, extended captions (if accurate!) add greatly to one's enjoyment and knowledge of what's being shown in an image.

It's a matter of personal preference but I don't think Colin Gifford's photos stand out that much from the work of others. They are different in style and it's an artistic style of photography that appeals to many, but not all. I think his captions are often too brief and some more information about the workings shown would be useful, if indeed he noted the details. If not, I think it's better not to make things up as too many captions are inaccurate. Authors often get the blame for this but they don't always do the captions. One book with caption errors is the second edition of Keith Parkin's Mark 1 book, but Keith did not do the captions. Apparently, David Jenkinson did them in a rush. The result is that some refer to the wrong photos and others are simply wrong captions, such as those that confuse Swansea with Swindon.

 

I have been on the hunt for photos showing 1937 Coronation Scot stock in BR days. As I noted on another thread, page 89 of 'West Coast Steam' by Antony Darnbrough (IA 1988) shows a Coronation Scot BFK in crimson and cream, second carriage in the bottom photo on page 89. It is captioned as being in the 11.25 am Birmingham-Glasgow in May 1956 but described erroneously as being a brake third open - no such carriages were in the 1937 Coronation Scot. If you don't know the carriage type, why make it up?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jwealleans said:

Staples or .45 brass wire.

 

 

... but you didn't fit lamp irons to them?

Yes, but rarely run tail traffic so durability isn't an issue.

Edited by Hollar
spelloing mistake
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 31A said:

I use staples as well, usually superglued into holes in the loco / vehicle, which in my case is usually plastic.  I must admit I've never had to solder them; I believe they are soft iron so would some kind of special flux be needed?  I must admit I simplify things in not representing the short horizontal piece that the base of the lamp should sit on - I think this might be difficult as staple wire is thicker than the brass which is usually used for etched items.

 

For irons that need a tiny shelf, the advice given to me was to solder a bent one on top of a straight one, file to shape and then jamb it in a bigger hole.  You would have to be very sharp to see it when it's in place, even on a smokebox door.

 

Tone

Edited by Hollar
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1

Share this post


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

Apparently, Robotham marked up corrections to captions which he had not written and text which had been edited and the publishers not only did not amend but instead made things worse. There were probably errors of his too but some were not of his making. This is far from untypical with certain publishers past, and possibly present too. I know someone else who was given only 24 hours to proof an entire book after it had been typeset and formatted and who had no time to ask anyone else to read through the captions (I had been lined up as someone to assist, but never had the chance). 

 

Sounds like the Marketing people where I work.  I can't work out if they're stupid or malevolent, but some of the nonsense they produce and then attach to me and my team is scandalous.  I understand most of them to be graduates from new 'universities' with 3rds in some modern humanities degree or other.

  • Friendly/supportive 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CUTLER2579 said:

Do they repeat themselves some times.:lol:

 

Yep, and fortunately professional and appropriately qualified marketeers wouldn't be moonlighting as magazine editors.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

Sounds like the Marketing people where I work.  I can't work out if they're stupid or malevolent, but some of the nonsense they produce and then attach to me and my team is scandalous.  I understand most of them to be graduates from new 'universities' with 3rds in some modern humanities degree or other.

This sounds like the marketing people where I worked for many years.  On the cover of our in-house magazine - which would be seen my many of our customers - there was a photo looking down on an aircraft carrier.  The numbers on the deck were the right way round but the sharp-eyed (and those who'd worked/served on carriers) thought it strange that the bridge was on the port side.  Every carrier in the world has the bridge on the starboard side.  The editors had reversed the image because it suited the cover layout better; when queried they responded that it didn't really matter.  Well, it didn't matter to them, as they didn't have to explain it to our Royal Navy customers who'd picked up a copy of the magazine in reception....

  • Funny 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Every carrier in the world has the bridge on the starboard side. 

 

Being utterly pedantic, there is one which doesn't, but it's been on the sea bed since 1942.....

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


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

 

Being utterly pedantic, there is one which doesn't, but it's been on the sea bed since 1942.....

 

And a very odd ship she was...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The marketing buffoons at my old place used to really wind the R&D designers (me amongst others) up. On a regular basis one would march into the design office with a huge grin on their face announcing they had sold a machine that could do XYZ. XYZ being something none of us had ever done, or had any idea HOW to do.

 

We were all for pushing the boundaries, but they really had no clue. Many a time they had to go back to the client and apologise profusely.

 

How that company is still going i have no idea.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

This sounds like the marketing people where I worked for many years.  On the cover of our in-house magazine - which would be seen my many of our customers - there was a photo looking down on an aircraft carrier.  The numbers on the deck were the right way round but the sharp-eyed (and those who'd worked/served on carriers) thought it strange that the bridge was on the port side.  Every carrier in the world has the bridge on the starboard side.  The editors had reversed the image because it suited the cover layout better; when queried they responded that it didn't really matter.  Well, it didn't matter to them, as they didn't have to explain it to our Royal Navy customers who'd picked up a copy of the magazine in reception....

Reminds me of a magazine cover I saw in the 1990s when the infamous Millennium Bridge across the Thames was announced. A image had been mocked up showing it in place, viewed from the South Bank looking across to St Paul's. Unfortunately, the way it was printed, St Paul's Cathedral was back to front.

  • Like 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stunning looking modelling, not just the 1F but the wagons and track as well. I'm always interested in why some modellers choose ply sleepers over plastic – is it purely down to personal preference or are there benefits that I've missed?

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My New Year's resolution was to re-visit a couple of locos which had been giving me issues.

 

You know that you have too many locos when you discover there are 2 with the same number. Heaton only needs one of 61869, so the other is now St. Margaret's 61885. How long it would have stayed looking ex-works is a good question, as both photos I have of it on Edinburgh-Tyneside freights show it looking pretty grubby.

 

Anyway, here it is in the headshunt at Little Benton North, either waiting a path back home or waiting to take a freight out of the sidings. Passing it is Haymarket's Hornets Beauty, just back in service after being fitted with an SEF chassis,. The loco is a DJH kit, which I made a mess of several years ago. Regrettably, DJH wont sell their chassis as spares, at least not to the likes of me.

 

Talking of A2's, I am about a third of the way through modifying another SEF chassis to fit under A2/3 Ocean Swell. This is a GBL body with Graeme King resin castings, and was fitted to a modified Hornby Brit chassis. I did 3 of them and all 3 chassis have failed with the motor coming out of mesh.

I'll get them running just in time for Hornby's release.

 

John

IMG_20200111_103609.jpg

Edited by rowanj
  • Like 11

Share this post


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

 I'm always interested in why some modellers choose ply sleepers over plastic – is it purely down to personal preference or are there benefits that I've missed?

 

I like ply for two reasons ... firstly I think it takes paint/stain better and so is easier to make convincing; secondly you can buy uncut lengths as well as the pre-cut standard runs and this gives flexibility when working out sleeper arrangements for pointwork etc - varying lengths and widths etc etc. Having said that, it is probably really just a matter of preference. One advantage I like is that the chairs are fixed down with butanone which grips into the grain .. so  because the bond is weaker than onto plastic, it is possible to adjust and change things even after bonding, which can be a godsend.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 3

Share this post


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

The marketing buffoons at my old place used to really wind the R&D designers (me amongst others) up. On a regular basis one would march into the design office with a huge grin on their face announcing they had sold a machine that could do XYZ. XYZ being something none of us had ever done, or had any idea HOW to do.

 

We were all for pushing the boundaries, but they really had no clue. Many a time they had to go back to the client and apologise profusely.

 

How that company is still going i have no idea.

Sounds more like sales than marketing, 

 

Tone

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5

Share this post


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

It was your articles in Model Railway Constructor about coaching stock over 40 years ago that set me off, even before Keith Parkin's book was published.

 

Carriage workings are not a great deal of use on their own. You need corroborative evidence from elsewhere, such as photos or logs, although even then it's risky as photo dates are often inaccurate and the few spotters who noted carriages probably made some mistakes too.

 

A recent example of where I have put the cat amongst the pigeons is on the Coronation Scot thread, where I asserted that the whole train was turned after each journey. Few, if any, believed me until none of them could find a photo of the train in regular service with the first class at the front in either direction.

 

I did.   :)

 

Probably because I actually read books and magazines written by the genuine experts rather than relying on assumptions.

 

I'm of the age when some major stations still had shunters moving trains to the carriage sidings. Maybe people now are used to the way multiple units work rather than loco hauled trains? 

 

I also remember when the prestigious trains got a proper clean rather than just a bloke walking along with a binbag for plastic coffee cups.

 

 

 

Jason

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

Stunning looking modelling, not just the 1F but the wagons and track as well. I'm always interested in why some modellers choose ply sleepers over plastic – is it purely down to personal preference or are there benefits that I've missed?

 

 

I used ply sleepers for the one and only layout I built using scratch built track.  The one advantage that I found was that I had used a Van Dyke brown stain to colour the sleepers.  When the ballast was laid and treated as always with the diluted PVA, the colour leached out of the sleepers.  The way this seemed to work was that the leaching was strongest at the middle of the track and at the sleeper ends.   This gave a very realistic grading of colour from the rail outwards along the sleepers.

 

In the end, wood does look like wood but plastic does not always look like wood if the colouring is not sympathetic.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

It was your articles in Model Railway Constructor about coaching stock over 40 years ago that set me off, even before Keith Parkin's book was published.

 

Carriage workings are not a great deal of use on their own. You need corroborative evidence from elsewhere, such as photos or logs, although even then it's risky as photo dates are often inaccurate and the few spotters who noted carriages probably made some mistakes too.

 

A recent example of where I have put the cat amongst the pigeons is on the Coronation Scot thread, where I asserted that the whole train was turned after each journey. Few, if any, believed me until none of them could find a photo of the train in regular service with the first class at the front in either direction.

 

For me it was seeing weird coaches nothing like I had seen in a catalogue, and the fact I found a coach spotting book very soon after I started on locos.

 

I reckon coaches started about a month after loco names.

 

I started collecting wagon details for my own models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, t-b-g said:

It was a photo of the 3 GWR Clerestories, which he had converted to EM gauge and altered slightly to look more GCR. I spoke to him about them and he told me that it was a lot of work to end up with inaccurate models and he wished that he hadn't bothered and wouldn't be doing any more.

I remember the RM article describing those - getting on for 60 years ago now!

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/01/2020 at 17:53, Ray Flintoft said:

You're quiet right , Tony , I have never seen any mention of the repositioning of the nameplates , even though it is clearly obvious in photographs . The other points you make are also correct , I think we have spoken about inaccurate statements in books & articles , especially with regard to photographs , which seem to be common nowadays . Trust nothing without corroboration !

   One question ; whist I know Peter Townend has written about the use of class A.2/3 on the cement train , I had always understood that it was at the instigation of Jack Somers , then Assistant DMPS at Peterborough . I may be wrong , but would like to know .

   I won't be buying any Hornby A.2/2 because I already have 5 plus the DGH kit for 60506 ; however I may buy a couple of the A.2/3 to replace my oldest , most inaccurate & poorest running Millholme efforts . Having looked in my cupboard I have realised that I may need to live longer than is likely to complete all the kits I still have !!

                             

     Best Wishes ,

                      Ray . 

Thanks Ray,

My source regarding the A2/3s on the cement train came from Peter Townend's LNER Pacifics at Work (my copy of which is still with Hornby). It could well have been in consultation with Jack Somers (I know his son, David, so I'll ask him), but once the big Thopmson Pacifics were on the job, any timekeeping problems disappeared. 

 

Occasionally, there's some surprise shown when the inability of the 9Fs to keep time on the train (the heaviest on the line?) is mentioned. The point is, the 9Fs aren't that big in comparison with an A2/3 (or even a V2). A 9F weighs 86 tons 14 cwt, with a tractive effort of 39,670 lb. An A2/3 weighs 101 tons 10 cwt, with a tractive effort of 40,430 lb (I know the TE is not entirely indicative of a loco's strength, but it's an interesting comparison, especially as the 9F has four more drivers). A V2 weighs 93 tons 2 cwt. I mention the weight because, if related to my models, the heaviest ones always pull the most, and, although any of the five 9Fs I've built can haul the 29-wagon cement train on LB, any of the four A2/3s I've built can take the rake with even greater ease! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

  • Informative/Useful 6

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.