Wright writes.....

[Clive Mortimore]

24 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Clive,

 

'The Vanwide (5th wagon along) over by the goods shed, it was built after the station had been demolished.'

 

Four reasons then! When was the van you mention (the real one) built? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Morning Tony

 

They were built in 1962.

[jwealleans]

Speedometer drive or AWS?

[Headstock]

15 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andrew,

 

Not right there, I'm afraid.

 

It is 60002 (Bachmann/SE Finecast/Crownline/Wright/Rathbone), and she's one of two A4s in BR days to tow a streamlined non-corridor tender with the extra strip at the tank's base to carry the pre-War stainless steel strip (60001 was the other). It's plainly visible on the model, and is vital (in my view) for accuracy. 

 

There was a third A4 streamlined non-corridor tender with this feature, but it was badly damaged when its owner (the first SIR RALPH WEDGWOOD) was destroyed at York during the War. It was repaired, and then ran behind A2/1 60507 until that loco was withdrawn.  

 

The un-found (as yet) anomaly in the picture has to do with the A4, though; but you'll have to look closely. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Morning Tony,

 

I could see the strip on the tender, I thought I would give it a punt, being to lazy to find my green book. I've put it down somewhere silly but obvious. I thought it may be A4 related.

Edited May 29, 2020 by Headstock

[Tony Wright]

19 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Clem,

 

I don't use Halford's were a top quality finish is required, it's fine on roofs, underframes and wagons, depending on the final finish required. I find the spray pattern is not fine enough for loco bodies or carriage sides. Before the lynch mob of people with shares in Halford's start moaning, I bet Tony isn't paying the likes of Ian Rathbone to get his Halford rattle cans out.

 

I have used Simoniz primer in the past, coincidentally, this was Larry Goddards paint of choice at one time. I used to be able to source this locally but the supply dried up (no pun intended). I had to order in by mail, but I had a lot off problems with duff cans, perhaps 50%. I'm now using Tetrosyl primer and so far I'm quite happy with the results. However, those  used to Halford's may find it less forgiving in its application, you have to be fast and accurate due to its unusual letter box shaped nozzle.

 

If you want a better finish, the biggest difference you can make is to buy an airbrush. They repay their investment very rapidly, they are much more flexible than rattle cans, less wasteful, have a finer spray patten (even on Halford's) cost less over time and are better for the environment. My opinion is that a good traditional brush painter, using good quality materials, can out perform the finish of rattle cans but how many are prepared to acquire the skills these days?  A good paint finish starts with the building of the model, I always work from the premise that paint does not cover up bad workmanship, how often to you here the opposite on RM web?

Good morning again, Andrew,

 

The finish you get on your models is incredible. 

 

However, for 'lesser mortals' don't discount entirely the finish which can be achieved by Halfords rattle can acrylics. I agree, they are more-wasteful, but a good top coat can be achieved with relative ease.

 

 

I got this 'adequate' finish on my whole Elizabethan rake using Halfords' acrylic spray cans. 

 

 

And on this ex-LMS car, photographed under studio lighting. 

 

 

Under layout lighting as well, the finish is tolerable (for a layout coach), despite the roof being wrong. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

3 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Morning Tony

 

They were built in 1962.

Another one on the 'for sale for charity' list then!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Woodcock29]

Tony the A4 has overhead wire warning flashes.

Andrew

[Tony Wright]

5 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

Speedometer drive or AWS?

Just about on the cusp, Jonathan, certainly with regard to the speedo.

 

The anomaly (but only under close scrutiny) are the overhead electric warning flashes on 60002. She was one of the last A4s to receive these (as late as '62/'63), though 60011 never got them (except on the tender). 

 

Ah, those joys of loco-picking!

 

In fairness (if anything I do can be described as fair), SIR MURROUGH WILSON was originally a Stoke Summit loco, and thus fitted the period depicted on that layout (1958-'64) perfectly.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

11 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning again, Andrew,

 

The finish you get on your models is incredible. 

 

However, for 'lesser mortals' don't discount entirely the finish which can be achieved by Halfords rattle can acrylics. I agree, they are more-wasteful, but a good top coat can be achieved with relative ease.

 

 

 

I got this 'adequate' finish on my whole Elizabethan rake using Halfords' acrylic spray cans. 

 

 

 

And on this ex-LMS car, photographed under studio lighting. 

 

 

 

Under layout lighting as well, the finish is tolerable (for a layout coach), despite the roof being wrong. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Good morning Tony,

 

I don't discount it. All I would say is that It is possible for the typical railway modeller to get a better finish if they so desire. I would also not discount your own skill at using the materials, I have seen plenty of messes created by people using identical products to yourself but with less ability. A4, electric warning flashes? Drat, I just noticed you beat me too it.

Edited May 29, 2020 by Headstock
add drat.

[Woodcock29]

2 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Just about on the cusp, Jonathan, certainly with regard to the speedo.

 

The anomaly (but only under close scrutiny) are the overhead electric warning flashes on 60002. She was one of the last A4s to receive these (as late as '62/'63), though 60011 never got them (except on the tender). 

 

Ah, those joys of loco-picking!

 

In fairness (if anything I do can be described as fair), SIR MURROUGH WILSON was originally a Stoke Summit loco, and thus fitted the period depicted on that layout (1958-'64) perfectly.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony did you see my post at the same time you wrote this?

[Tony Wright]

5 minutes ago, Woodcock29 said:

Tony the A4 has overhead wire warning flashes.

Andrew

Dead right, Andrew,

 

See my post above, please.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 minute ago, Woodcock29 said:

Tony did you see my post at the same time you wrote this?

It looks like we crossed posts again.......

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[31A]

1 hour ago, Clem said:

Morning Andrew.

I'm sure you've divulged this before, but can you remind me what you use for primer. I have been using bog standard Halfords grey acrylic for locos but not always 100% to my satisfaction. I'd be very interested in using something better if readily available and as Mike mentioned above, your paintwork is exemplary. Thanks in advance.

 

Clem

 

Sorry to butt in, as the question was directed at Andrew, but I'd just like to mention that I've recently taken to using Halford's Etch Primer on metal models as it gives an extremely durable finish.  It doesn't seem to harm plastic either so if the model contains metal and plastic (e.g. plastic coach roof) it can still be used, and I have achieved a very good finish using it.

 

https://www.halfords.com/motoring/paints-and-body-repair/primer/halfords-etch-primer-500ml-370400.html

 

[resin001]

Is there an etch primer you can buy for use with an airbrush ?  - I use Halfords rattle can at the moment but would prefer the control of application achieved using my airbrush 

[jrg1]

20 hours ago, MJI said:

 

 

Don't get me started!

 

The Mark 1 was a quick fix, a decent modern old style vehicle easy to produce a lot of, the carriage version of the BR standards.

 

Swindon developed both the B4 bogie and unitary construction so the prototype Mark 2, a very different vehicle but not that advanced.

 

2DEF were the first proper advances for the passenger.

 

As to riding on a Mark 1 or Mark 2 _ABC depends entirely what is under the Mark 1. a 1 FO declassified as a SO on B4 is preferable to a 2B TSO, my rake of 2Bs has 2 1 FOs declassified one Commonwealth one B4, I rode in real life in the B4 one, was one of my favourite 47s as well.

Just catching up here.  The mark 1 was the final development of the traditional coach-separate underframe, traditional frame and skin body construction.  it was also incredibly crash-worthy; more so than the integrally-constructed vehicles that supplanted it.  The original bogies were high maintenance and deteriorated quickly-Commonwealth bogies gave a superb ride, but were expensive to make.  I still wonder at the decision to fit diesels with boilers to supply mark 1 carriage steam heating-surely the CIE practice of separate heating vehicles was far more practical, and made the changeover to electric heating easier.

[Bazza]

A couple of points. Many diesel loco failures in the early days were just because of steam heat boiler failures. Having them in a separate van would not have helped. The second man would not have had access either. ETH would have meant the the early underpowered locos would have had even less hp for traction.

Re Mk1 crashworthiness, they were better than much previous vehicles but inferior to the later integral body stock. I seem to remember that one of the post Clapham recommendations was elimination of Mk1 vehicles.

Bazza

. 

[Tony Wright]

Carrying on from the elevated-position pictures from yesterday......

 

 

As HYCILLA sped past, the camera was swung through 180 degrees, getting this 'going away' shot. 

 

 

Just as the ground-level picture-taker got this one. 

 

The elevated views certainly show more of the layout, but the ground-level views have some 'merit' I think. 

 

As for future elevated-views, I think I'll concentrate on where it might have been possible to get a shot, rather than arbitrary 'floating' pictures. 

[Tony Wright]

5 hours ago, polybear said:

 

 

Cheque book modelling.  Every man has his price.  Three quid, in this case.....

A real bargain, I'd say; re-gauging the wheels just about keeps you clear of The Dark Side too.  Just.

The 'Force' wasn't strong enough at the time, Brian,

 

Seriously, they were too good to miss; and I didn't use my chequebook!

 

I don't have the slightest problem with chequebook modellers, as long as it's ALWAYS made clear who's done the work when credit is given. Too many writers of cheques, though not actually telling lies, don't always tell the whole truth, by omission.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited May 29, 2020 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Killybegs]

2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Morning Tony

 

They were built in 1962.

 

Not a lot of people know that vanwides are renowned for being time travelers which is why, from time to time, they appear on layouts like Little Bytham and Worseter.

[t-b-g]

21 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Carrying on from the elevated-position pictures from yesterday......

 

 

As HYCILLA sped past, the camera was swung through 180 degrees, getting this 'going away' shot. 

 

 

Just as the ground-level picture-taker got this one. 

 

The elevated views certainly show more of the layout, but the ground-level views have some 'merit' I think. 

 

As for future elevated-views, I think I'll concentrate on where it might have been possible to get a shot, rather than arbitrary 'floating' pictures. 

 

The ground level shots would look better to me if it didn't appear as if the photographer was standing on the track. It is the rails disappearing immediately under the lens that I find a bit off putting. If the lens was an inch or two to the left or right, it becomes the sort of photo somebody with a lineside permit might have taken, rather than somebody who had little idea of personal safety!  "Would a real photographer in that situation stand alongside the track or on it? " is the question I would ask myself. 

 

A photographer on a bridge could be directly above a track, so that doesn't bother me as much when the camera is higher.

[Tony Wright]

57 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

The ground level shots would look better to me if it didn't appear as if the photographer was standing on the track. It is the rails disappearing immediately under the lens that I find a bit off putting. If the lens was an inch or two to the left or right, it becomes the sort of photo somebody with a lineside permit might have taken, rather than somebody who had little idea of personal safety!  "Would a real photographer in that situation stand alongside the track or on it? " is the question I would ask myself. 

 

A photographer on a bridge could be directly above a track, so that doesn't bother me as much when the camera is higher.

Point taken, though I've seen several examples of photographers standing on the tracks.

 

What I'm trying to do is to get the camera positions in exactly the same place as is practicable, the only difference being in the relative heights. The shots are only for comparative purposes.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Killybegs said:

 

Not a lot of people know that vanwides are renowned for being time travelers which is why, from time to time, they appear on layouts like Little Bytham and Worseter.

 

Like a police box? It must be wider on the inside.

[Tony Wright]

Another of those nasty time-travelling vans seems to have appeared..........

 

 

Seen from the Down slow starter's platform, this time we have the Down pick-up indulging in some shunting (the 'Palbrick' is destined for Bytham Brickworks, so it'll be coupled up). 

 

It just isn't worth Photoshopping the backscene joint between the two systems - it is as it is.  

 

Climbing down, taking a picture from this aspect at rail-level would have given a poor shot.

 

 

So this angle was used. 

 

A 'candid' shot of a little-seen corner of Little Bytham. 

 

 

[Denbridge]

17 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

 

Yes, that's the point.  By the time you get to the elevated heights of CME  or Head of Carriage & Wagon (or the equivalent in practically any other job you can think of), your role is not to "do" it; it is to ensure it is properly "done", by your team, in the most appropriate, effective, and cost-effective way.  When things go well, yes you rightly get the credit.  When they go wrong though, you carry the can, even if you personally were nowhere near the smoking gun.  Therefore - where you're allowed to do so - you pick your senior team very carefully.

 

Which makes me wonder what it must have been like to be Edward Thompson, having to work with a bunch of people who made no great secret of the fact they'd rather someone else had got your job, didn't rate your ideas for how to develop and build new locomotives in the middle of a war with all the constraints that brought, and showed no great enthusiasm for solving the inevitable problems that resulted.  (Until after you'd gone of course ...).  Whatever the merits or demerits of his designs - or rather, his design concepts - it was surely something of a 'poisoned chalice'he inherited.

 

 

The LMS Coronations are a good case in point. Whilst credited to Bill Stanier, he played little if any part in the design beyond the initial concept, being overseas during the design phase. The detailed design was undertaken under the leadership of Tom Coleman.

Edited May 29, 2020 by Denbridge
Spelling

[Killybegs]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Another of those nasty time-travelling vans seems to have appeared..........

 

 

Seen from the Down slow starter's platform, this time we have the Down pick-up indulging in some shunting (the 'Palbrick' is destined for Bytham Brickworks, so it'll be coupled up). 

 

It just isn't worth Photoshopping the backscene joint between the two systems - it is as it is.  

 

Climbing down, taking a picture from this aspect at rail-level would have given a poor shot.

 

 

So this angle was used. 

 

A 'candid' shot of a little-seen corner of Little Bytham. 

 

 

 

I particularly like that second shot.

[LNER4479]

4 hours ago, Denbridge said:

The LMS Coronations are a good case in point. Whilst credited to Bill Stanier, he played little if any part in the design beyond the initial concept, being overseas during the design phase. The detailed design was undertaken under the leadership of Tom Coleman.

But Stanier's 'genius' was to have identified Coleman's potential when he first arrived at the LMS and promote him ahead of more senior men (and equally deal with the ruffled feathers of said men). True leadership and man management.