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

26 minutes ago, MJI said:

This will never be RTR, runs with 6 Shawplanned Airfix 2D, a Lima 47 and a Replica BG

 

I think that proves my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good afternoon Andy,

 

my ears must be burning.

 

I have no love for MK 1's but I don't hate them. Their stock rises if modellers are taking the time and effort to build them. Catering carriages of all types are always of interest. Yours get three gold stars, being built by yourself, being based on a real prototype and despite being MK 1's, they avoid the cookie cutter phenomenon. However, I'm nocking one star off, for getting the division line between the crimson and cream band in the wrong place on the lower bodyside!


My lack of love is basically that


1. They are boring, a virus of uniformity.


2. They are ugly, not in an interesting way, just boring ugly.


3. Real word proliferation, leading to the disappearance of a wonderful diversity of elegant, individual, interesting, quirky, if unsafe rolling stock. The alternative is safe but a bit boring


4. model railway proliferation, except for one or two  loonies, people just buy MK1's fully formed, (or should that be malformed) leading to the disappearance of a wonderful diversity of elegant, individual, interesting, quirky, modelling. The alternative is .........................you guessed it.

Good afternoon Andrew,

 

I rejoice in being a loony! 

 

Beauty (as always) is in the eye of the beholder (as is ugliness).

 

470347482_ECMLtrain02.jpg.73889e4e8de286c20fe787395af62dbe.jpg

 

Despite this train's all-Mk.1 formation, I find it a beautiful rake. 

 

194747529_ECMLtrain23extraLMSGWRBRLNERstock.jpg.cfadd44cbf76bbf8c4653ea678eaaf4d.jpg

 

Far more-beautiful (though, perhaps, not as interesting) than this jumbled up mixture. With ex-LMS, ex-GWR, MK.1s and ex-LNER cars (could there be an ex-SR one in the distance?), it's a bit of a muddle in comparison.

 

It comes down, of course, to modelling motivation. Mine, as is known, is to model what I saw. Thus, during my 'spotting days on the ECML, many of the principal trains had Mk.1 carriages in them. 

 

Pragmatism also calls. I've said before, that to produce all the Mk.1s I 'need' for LB, I'd need to build well over a hundred of them. It's just not practicable

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 10
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

It's impossible for me to advise you on which lenses to use, without asking the following questions. Which DSLR are you using? Is it full-frame? When you say you have a 'standard' 18-55mm kit lens, what's its make? 

Hi Tony,

 

Apologies, I knew I should have mentioned what camera make and model I use in the first post. I currently use a Nikon D3100, having recently "upgraded" from a D40 that I used for quite a few years, and the 18 - 55mm is a Nikon DX series lense.

 

Regards, Chris

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Geep7 said:

Hi Tony,

 

Apologies, I knew I should have mentioned what camera make and model I use in the first post. I currently use a Nikon D3100, having recently "upgraded" from a D40 that I used for quite a few years, and the 18 - 55mm is a Nikon DX series lense.

 

Regards, Chris

 

 

Thanks Chris,

 

I'm afraid I've no idea what the capabilities of a Nikon D3100 are, but is it full-frame? If not, there'll be limitations. 

 

Any Nikon lens should have good resolution (as long as it's been made in Japan - some were made elsewhere, and, I'm told, though I've never used one, aren't as good. Perhaps others will know). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Thanks Chris,

 

I'm afraid I've no idea what the capabilities of a Nikon D3100 are, but is it full-frame? If not, there'll be limitations. 

 

Any Nikon lens should have good resolution (as long as it's been made in Japan - some were made elsewhere, and, I'm told, though I've never used one, aren't as good. Perhaps others will know). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Ah, sorry. It's got an APS-C sensor, so not full frame unfortunately.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

My lack of love is basically that


1. They are boring, a virus of uniformity.

 

Oddly enough I find a lot of Big-4 designs uniform. Each had it's own standard designs that only varied when the chief engineer changed. Surely a rake of 100% Gresley, Stanier, Maunsell or Hawksworth designed coached is just as dull. The variety comes in as soon as you start mixing designs - add a pre-nationalisation coach to a rake of Mk1s and the train becomes more interesting. Similarly mixing Mk1, 2 and 3s together does the same, just fewer people do it.

 

There are plenty of passenger carrying Mk1 diagrams that have yet to be produced RTR, before starting on parcel and post stock.

 

Steven B.

  • Agree 4

Share this post


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

 

But what if it hadn't been, or wasn't supplied?

 

Or you needed a good excuse to make a new and better one.

Share this post


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

 

Oddly enough I find a lot of Big-4 designs uniform. Each had it's own standard designs that only varied when the chief engineer changed. Surely a rake of 100% Gresley, Stanier, Maunsell or Hawksworth designed coached is just as dull. The variety comes in as soon as you start mixing designs - add a pre-nationalisation coach to a rake of Mk1s and the train becomes more interesting. Similarly mixing Mk1, 2 and 3s together does the same, just fewer people do it.

 

There are plenty of passenger carrying Mk1 diagrams that have yet to be produced RTR, before starting on parcel and post stock.

 

Steven B.

 

Good evening Steve,

 

what a super idea, I have placed my order with Hattons.

Share this post


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

I disagree entirely,

 

Definitely not. There must be thousands like you who find the description abhorrent, of which I'm definitely one! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

The wond'rful language thee calleth english is f'r ev'r evolving railway station  to traineth station.

  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


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

Evening Tony. I've been enjoying your photographic jaunts around Little Bytham.  The eye level (scale eye) shots really bring out the realism of the railway and paint your Locos and stock in a most convincing way. I particularly like the M&GN shots from the road. One of the regrets of my layout is that it is a 'flat earth' layout as you call it. 

 

However, one angle I've found quite interesting is using the i-phone camera. It allows the shot to be taken about a scale foot above the ground and gives quite and interesting perspective. The big drawback is the lack of depth of field and anything other than a side-on loses focus half way down the loco. But my i-phone is very old and the cameras have improved much since mine. I believe the latest ones allow you to adjust the aperture and presumably allows a much greater depth of field. Anyway, here are one or two shots of the new austerity which is virtually constructionally complete now. 

 

IMG_4855_rdcd.jpg.57b8d06d1afa9e966e898faad3c2a467.jpgIMG_4856_rdcd.jpg.a2c194365df470365fd98d90533c3423.jpgIMG_4857_rdcd.jpg.61d1b111b1389268b6639abaec9fee81.jpgIMG_4858_rdcd.jpg.391ad7d59cb587e9b7bc7006737b13b2.jpg

 

 

Good evening Clem,

 

I'm not being disparaging to fat earth layouts. If that's the nature of the topography being modelled (where the formation is the lowest feature), then that's all one can do. It's just that, from a photographic point of view, having objects (much) higher than the camera gives me some interesting viewpoints. 

 

That said, your phone camera almost gives a worm's eye view (if worms had eyes), and really shows off the mass of your splendid WD. Even with my camera standing on the floor adjacent to a loco, the viewpoint is that of a Brobdingnagian! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Regards,

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

That said, your phone camera almost gives a worm's eye view (if worms had eyes), and really shows off the mass of your splendid WD. Even with my camera standing on the floor adjacent to a loco, the viewpoint is that of a Brobdingnagian! 

That's true. But I'm probably more gullible than Gulliver!

  • Funny 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On my DSLR (Canon) the APS sensor gives a slight advantage in some circumstances when using my telephoto lens’ for sport and wildlife work. The next body however will be full frame.

Re what have you done in lockdown, not much yet, these three were completed with individual numbers, laserglase and minor detailing. I get furloughed soon so hope to do quite a bit more then.

 

D0413489-E714-4985-9050-89974659A1F4.jpeg

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony,

 

Is there a particular reason why some of the buildings on LB are removable? Was it a conscious decision from the outset?

 

Archie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The superbly modelled station building on Sandford and Banwell, taken at Southampton show.

 

I confess that I don't strive for perfection, just sufficient quality to make A4 prints to my own satisfaction, with the minimum of fuss and post-processing.

 

Panasonic Lumix G9 (Micro Four Thirds format, so smaller than DX), Leica 12-60 zoom lens, set at 35mm (equivalent to 70mm on full-frame). In-camera focus-stacking (my first attempt at using it away from home).

 

The book says use a tripod, this was hand-held, using only the layout lighting, ISO 1600, 1/200 sec at f/3.8 x however many frames the camera deemed necessary (eight I think).

 

John

PPG90038.JPG

  • Like 12
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1

Share this post


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

Tony,

 

Is there a particular reason why some of the buildings on LB are removable? Was it a conscious decision from the outset?

 

Archie

Archie,

 

It was a conscious decision. 

 

Apart from the buildings on the island platforms, all the others sit in 'footprints' cut from card, glued to the groundwork. There are several reasons for this. It makes removal for photography dead easy. It also disguises the tell-tale shadow at the buildings' bases when photographs are taken. It also allows for maintenance/track cleaning (inside the goods shed, for instance) and also stops them from moving without their being glued down.

 

How I did it is explained in my Crowood book.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark 1s are uniform until you start looking at them. 

 

At the last count, my fleet included over 250 of them, excluding GUVs, CCTs, TPO vans, Pullmans and non-gangwayed stock.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

The superbly modelled station building on Sandford and Banwell, taken at Southampton show.

 

I confess that I don't strive for perfection, just sufficient quality to make A4 prints to my own satisfaction, with the minimum of fuss and post-processing.

 

Panasonic Lumix G9 (Micro Four Thirds format, so smaller than DX), Leica 12-60 zoom lens, set at 35mm (equivalent to 70mm on full-frame). In-camera focus-stacking (my first attempt at using it away from home).

 

The book says use a tripod, this was hand-held, using only the layout lighting, ISO 1600, 1/200 sec at f/3.8 x however many frames the camera deemed necessary (eight I think).

 

John

PPG90038.JPG

Did you show me your camera at the Southampton show, John?

 

If so, its depth of field capability was very impressive.

 

I've taken a picture of that same wonderful station building......................

 

286608621_SandfordBanwell14.jpg.65b6b1dc6c5b547bcad87fc7f3817408.jpg

 

Not at 1600 ASA, however. And just one shot, with the camera (Nikon D3) on a sturdy tripod. 

 

Perhaps your camera shows us the future in model railway photography.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

That's true. But I'm probably more gullible than Gulliver!

Perhaps a Liliputian took this................................

 

1696093665_upshots0190146.jpg.d06ab2dc4553172b8b12b774b3a74594.jpg

 

Having subjects standing higher than the camera certainly does give different viewpoints. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 11
  • Agree 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a request for some pictures of Little Bytham's 'interesting' wagons. 

 

This is certainly one.............................

 

1723477235_LGWwagon.jpg.0745b3d6c64a730023c98a062e34d3c9.jpg

 

Built as a gift by a friend in the North East (thanks Geoff). 

 

I assume these lasted into BR days?

 

More wagon shots tomorrow, and more 'looking upwards' shots as well. 

 

 

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been spending some house arrest time reworking a couple of insulated vans to look more like my photos.  This time, I hope, they look more like the real thing after many, many hours with tiny brushes and the faithful, charima-enhancing optivisor.  Luckily for me, CCT are trading again so I was able to letter them up properly.  And of course I didn't notice just how much the left-hand tiebar doesn't look like the real thing.  Tomorrow's little job.

 

ToneTwin_insuls.JPG.a6d32f192e98d6985823c8db3f9e4d36.JPG

  • Like 10

Share this post


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

Did you show me your camera at the Southampton show, John?

 

If so, its depth of field capability was very impressive.

 

I've taken a picture of that same wonderful station building......................

 

286608621_SandfordBanwell14.jpg.65b6b1dc6c5b547bcad87fc7f3817408.jpg

 

Not at 1600 ASA, however. And just one shot, with the camera (Nikon D3) on a sturdy tripod. 

 

Perhaps your camera shows us the future in model railway photography.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Yes, Tony, that was me. I didn't appreciate how well that shot had turned out until I got home and saw it on the laptop screen. The lettering on the wagons in the background especially impressed me.

 

I have to confess that my input was limited to framing it and not wobbling too much whilst the camera did its stuff!

 

There were a couple of other shots that didn't go so well; one including the lattice footbridge, offered so many possible focussing points that the poor thing became completely confused and certain spurious effects (properly called digital artifacts, I believe) got generated in the left background. It would never have happened with film, but then again, none of the rest would, either.

 

As with all things, horses for courses, but I think it does offer another route to getting decent pictures under conditions that may not be ideal. The beastie will also do "conventional" focus stacking, Panasonic call it focus bracketing, and it can be set to take up to a wholly excessive total of 999 frames. That requires the stacking to be done in post-processing, for which I don't yet have the necessary software. Any recommendations gratefully received.   

 

John

PPG90040 copy.JPG

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 5

Share this post


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

There was a request for some pictures of Little Bytham's 'interesting' wagons. 

 

This is certainly one.............................

 

1723477235_LGWwagon.jpg.0745b3d6c64a730023c98a062e34d3c9.jpg

 

Built as a gift by a friend in the North East (thanks Geoff). 

 

I assume these lasted into BR days?

 

More wagon shots tomorrow, and more 'looking upwards' shots as well. 

 

 

 

 

This photo is 1970.

 

https://www.railscot.co.uk/img/33/139/

 

The lettering on this one is a bit more like the model.

 

https://hmrs.org.uk/photographs/leith-general-warehousing-10t-grain-van-118-unidloc-side-tare-7-18-2-spoked-wheels-lettered-with-large-company-initials.html

 

 

 

Jason

Edited by Steamport Southport
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 3

Share this post


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

 

Good afternoon Andy,

 

my ears must be burning.

 

I have no love for MK 1's but I don't hate them. Their stock rises if modellers are taking the time and effort to build them. Catering carriages of all types are always of interest. Yours get three gold stars, being built by yourself, being based on a real prototype and despite being MK 1's, they avoid the cookie cutter phenomenon. However, I'm nocking one star off, for getting the division line between the crimson and cream band in the wrong place on the lower bodyside!


My lack of love is basically that


1. They are boring, a virus of uniformity.


2. They are ugly, not in an interesting way, just boring ugly.


3. Real word proliferation, leading to the disappearance of a wonderful diversity of elegant, individual, interesting, quirky, if unsafe rolling stock. The alternative is safe but a bit boring


4. model railway proliferation, except for one or two  loonies, people just buy MK1's fully formed, (or should that be malformed) leading to the disappearance of a wonderful diversity of elegant, individual, interesting, quirky, modelling. The alternative is .........................you guessed it.

Good evening Andrew,

 

I certainly agree with your 1, 3 & 4 above. I don’t find them ugly.

 

I have studied this for a while and can’t see what’s wrong with the division between crimson and cream. Should it be higher or lower? The RK looks different from the others, but that’s because the windows are higher.
 

Andy

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.