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.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Porcy Mane said:

 

 

 

Hmmmmmm. I remember the thread on an old version of RM web were Mr Banks and a hastily created alter ego to back up his theories, had each one of his opinions on pigeon traffic and the Diagram 120 van thoroughly debunked. Despite references  from others to official drawings clearly titleing the van as, "fitted with shelves for pigeon traffic" Mr Banks's intransigence was quite telling.

 

No doubt you will have been here:

 

https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7760&sid=f2832738f132627a8273370f1ecf7a73&start=60#p116087

 

and from further down the thread:

 

https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7760&sid=f2832738f132627a8273370f1ecf7a73&start=60#p116087

 

There are plenty of photographs knocking about showing these with BYP and pigeon branding although I'm talking in the BR period.

 

P

 

 

 

Good afternoon P,

 

As I pointed out up thread, I don't agree with everything that Steve Banks has to say on the subject. However, lots of vans were fitted with shelves for pigeon traffic, the NER BZ's for example. It doesn't mean a thing one way or the other re official names. To Quote Bill Bedford from the end of the thread,

 

"I think you are over thinking this. These vehicles were built as replacements for earlier four and six wheeled brake vans. The fact that the drawing states that shelves were fitted indicates to me that these were novel features not present in earlier vans. While the shelves could be seen as usefully increasing the capacity of the vans when carrying racing pigeons, they would have been equally useful for carrying other light-weight delicate commodities . I note from the drawing that these vans were also fitted with dog rings, does that mean that they were intended for the carriage of dogs or that the rings were a useful fitting if/when dogs, or other small animals, were offered for carriage?"

 

  Where is the photo of BYP? can you post it please, or provide a link. I've been looking for one for a long time, in photographs, special trains notices and carriage working notices, so far I only have BY branding, BY not there, BY working parcels mails for............Any help would be appreciated, even though I will never build one of these squat little dog vans. All in fun.

Edited by Headstock
Add intro
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Pigeon vans, Midland style. The Midland Railway Study Centre has quite a bit of info on pigeon traffic, discussed here:

in the course of a topic on S&DJR pigeon specials, which covers much of the LNER ground gone over above. 

 

Diagram of 45 ft clerestory bogie passenger brake van fitted up with pigeon shelves here [Midland Railway Study Centre Item 88-C0166].

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Afternoon Clive,

 

the two things are not mutually exclusive, Just even more tumultuous on the scale of fun. Think super fun, with wiggley pipes on.

Hi Andrew

 

It is a good thing we don't all model the same but can enjoy what we do. A Whistler fan could tell you what is wrong with these two, I know what is wrong as I built them both. I do like seeing them stretching their legs.

 

  • Like 15
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Andrew

 

It is a good thing we don't all model the same but can enjoy what we do. A Whistler fan could tell you what is wrong with these two, I know what is wrong as I built them both. I do like seeing them stretching their legs.

 

 

Thanks clive,

 

is it the front couplings or the lack of lamps? My eyes only work at a prescribed one foot distance. 

 

Most entertaining and I love the beautiful blue walls.

Edited by Headstock
hit return
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Roy,

 

I think the A3 picture you've posted is of a modified Hornby one.

 

This is your Pro-Scale one...........

 

2127611358_60046ROY@34F01.jpg.20babe7bb4adda864e3c9e2609bfe834.jpg

 

1808034031_60046ROY@34F02.jpg.cc17e71135315587df2e2ecc8d69e6ad.jpg

 

As running on LB some years ago (it must be a while ago - the Bachmann Mk.1s still have their roof ribs!). 

 

It's one of the few fitted with a streamlined non-corridor tender. 

 

Speaking of tenders, I'm afraid your HAPPY KNIGHT has the incorrect type (as originally supplied by Wills - beading, turn-ins at the front and too wide; the fault of Roche). 

 

Here's the prototype........

 

215301000_A260533Grantham28.6_58.jpg.0a1062d4bb4f869b3a6e0a362b1d8b89.jpg

 

At Grantham according to the notes, in 1958. However, how common were Stanier Fives at your depot? 

 

Note the incorrect right-facing BR lion on the tender.

 

Rob Kinsey and I built 60533 between us (from a Crownline kit, but with a DJH cast metal smokebox/boiler/firebox) for service on Stoke Summit...........

 

 

1071198751_60533passingsignal.jpg.0c7efabf61905d3bd5f3215fab3416ac.jpg

 

Note the rivets on the tender.

 

Ian Rathbone painted her. 

 

949256639_A26053302.jpg.0dbd034df2512df40cb9909aa9418c0e.jpg

 

And it now sees regular use on Little Bytham (though this was taken a few years ago as well).

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

 

 

Tony ,

  Yes of course you are correct . That is a modified Hornby A3 (60047) and 60046 is the pro scale A3 ( I think the dome looks too tall by the way )  I remember it on L.B..  Incidentally the photo of it you posted to me that day was quite small and wouldn't enlarge . Don't ask me why , as you say , these computers are a mystery .

I don't recall ever seeing a Stanier Five at Grantham . In answer to your question , I hadn't noticed that !

Regarding my 60533 , well I'll live with the tender as it is , but thanks for your info and reply . It still runs fine with it's old triangle chassis . Though as I said with Romford wheels .

 

Regards , Roy .

Edited by ROY@34F
Missed the Stanier Five
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Not quite that bad but you've proved the point - it certainly isn't all of them (in fact I don't know myself for certain without checking. Probably only about 10 of the 14). If I get one that's giving me grief one of the first things I do is to take the middle wheelset out.

I've had trouble with six-wheelers, John.

 

It's always the middle pair (in my experience) which causes the grief. 

 

My solution (not quite as drastic as removing the wheels?) is to effectively 'let them go along for the ride'. By that, I mean they carry no weight (other than themselves and their axle), they have more than sufficient sideplay and lots of up and down movement. Even if they derail (not unheard of), they just bounce along causing no problems. 

 

Invariably, I make them inside bearing - just an inverted 'U'-shaped piece of brass with slotted holes for the axle (north south), with plenty of sideplay. Occasionally, where it might be supplied in a kit) I've pivoted the assembly, but that seems to cause more problems than it solves. 

 

They say that confession is good for the soul..........................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Andrew

 

It is a good thing we don't all model the same but can enjoy what we do. A Whistler fan could tell you what is wrong with these two, I know what is wrong as I built them both. I do like seeing them stretching their legs.

 

Very entertaining Clive,

 

I like the EE Type 4s; I'm interested in how you made them (not that I'll ever indulge).

 

What struck me most was the 'wobbling' carriages. Can anything be done to prevent this? I've had a few do this, and often changing the wheels cures the problem, particularly losing some RTR ones. That, and fitting touching concertina gangways, where adjacent vehicles can help each other.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

To Quote Bill Bedford from the end of the thread,

 

I don't think there is over thinking at all. 

 

Just as a 16 ton mineral wagon could be loaded with anything from anthracite to granulated sugar through to horse manure, the Diag. 120 would have carried anything from pigeons to oversize hats. Any thing the LNER deemed suitable to maximise revenue. That doesn't alter the fact that Mr Banks insistence  (giving many reasons) that 120's were never designed for the carriage of pigeons nor would have ever carried such loads, which was in total contradiction to official and unofficial sources. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

Where is the photo of BYP?

 

Cropped from a neg, branding from BR days. The photographer was N. D. Mundy.

 

E70241E-BYP(3).jpg.8a878d6fd32d1ccbe163252212eb1cd7.jpg

Edited by Porcy Mane
  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ROY@34F said:

Tony ,

  Yes of course you are correct . That is a modified Hornby A3 (60047) and 60046 is the pro scale A3 ( I think the dome looks too tall by the way )  I remember it on L.B..  Incidentally the photo of it you posted to me that day was quite small and wouldn't enlarge . Don't ask me why , as you say , these computers are a mystery .

I don't recall ever seeing a Stanier Five at Grantham . In answer to your question .

Regarding my 60533 , well I'll live with the tender as it is , but thanks for your info and reply . It still runs fine with it's old triangle chassis . Though as I said with Romford wheels .

 

Regards , Roy .

Thanks Roy,

 

Could it be a Stanier 8F in the prototype picture of 60533?

 

I've seen shots of that class working on the main line south of Grantham. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Very entertaining Clive,

 

I like the EE Type 4s; I'm interested in how you made them (not that I'll ever indulge).

 

What struck me most was the 'wobbling' carriages. Can anything be done to prevent this? I've had a few do this, and often changing the wheels cures the problem, particularly losing some RTR ones. That, and fitting touching concertina gangways, where adjacent vehicles can help each other.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Hello Tony

 

D209 is an elongated Tri-ang class 37. It runs on a Lima chassis. It retains its tension lock couplings both ends making it useful for my terminus station. 

 

D375 is hand made, many years ago. It has a mainline Peak chassis. It lacks tension lock couplings either end. It was able to pull along the wobbly coaches as it has a wire loop dangling from the buffers on the rear bogie.

 

The Wobbly coaches are old Airfix ones which are prone to giving their passengers motion sickness. It is on the list to be sorted. I believe it has something to do with the center boss on the bogies being too small.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Porcy Mane said:

 

I don't think there is over thinking at all. 

 

Just as a 16 ton mineral wagon could be loaded with anything from anthracite to granulated sugar through to horse manure, the Diag. 120 would have carried anything from pigeons to oversize hats. Any thing the LNER deemed suitable to maximise revenue. That doesn't alter the fact that Mr Banks insistence  (giving many reasons) that 120's were never designed for the carriage of pigeons nor would have ever carried such loads, which was in total contradiction to official and unofficial sources. 

 

 

 

Cropped from a neg, branding from BR days. The photographer was N. D. Mundy.

 

E70241E-BYP(3).jpg.8a878d6fd32d1ccbe163252212eb1cd7.jpg

 

Thanks P,

 

that's awesome. The fact that some are branded BYP and some where branded BY, confirms that you shouldn't refer to the whole lot as Pigeon vans. Also the shelves have nothing to do with the branding, as those branded BY also had the shelves. I hope those modeling these vans will take note of the branding, at least on E 70241 E, as they will have built BY's rather than BYP's. It looks like the jumper cables have been removed.

Edited by Headstock
clarify a point
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I sometimes think about whether the way we view models has changed over the years due to the advent of digital photography.

 

If you look back at magazines from, say, the 1970s, the sort of photos you see are the same sorts of views that you would get if you were looking at the layout in front of you. Most pictures are general views rather than ultra close ups.

 

To get a decent photo, as you will remember, required some good kit, lighting, very likely a big tripod mounted firmly on the floor.

 

The advent of clever, megapixel digital cameras, even in phones and suchlike mean that just about anybody can get a really cruel close up view without special equipment. You can still usually tell if the photographer is actually any good or not but even I can get a reasonably sharp image many times life size on my screen.

 

So we have two things diverging. We have, as you delicately put it, "older" eyes that see a bit less well than they used to but we have the photographic side that zooms in and highlights omissions and flaws far more than it used to.

 

For one, we have the layout loco concept and for the other, we need to put more detail on better than we ever have done before.

 

I don't know an answer, it is just something mull over in my mind sometimes!

 

  

It's a very good situation to mull over, Tony,

 

And I have no answers. 

 

As you know, when I took pictures of Buckingham (nearly 12 years ago!) I deliberately 'pulled back' with the camera. Not that I thought Peter's modelling didn't deserve to be seen in 'close-up, but because 60 year old cardboard/balsa/brick-papers can just look like that. The best shots I took were 'overall', showing the layout in (I hope) its best light. That said, there were still some 'track-level' shots which worked very well (because of the modelling, not because of my photography).

 

Now, as you allude to, we have 'super realism', which I'm not at all sure actually 'flatters' some models/layouts. To me, some don't look 'real' at all, with weird 'stacking' effects and lurid colours. By saying that, I hope I'm not perceived as showing 'sour grapes'. I accept that my days of taking loads of pictures of model railways are now over, though I still take the odd snap; as illustrated in the latest issue of BRM. A glance at the pictures of the O Gauge locos on shed in that will show that I can still 'master' the basics of lighting, composition and depth of field. That said, and this is not a criticism of the standards of modelling, the locos look too 'clinical' to me. Too 'perfect'. 

 

Which brings me on to ponder, what do I expect? A good camera cannot lie, and it is as useful as any tool in making a model as gauges, calipers, squares and jigs. It casts a far more 'critical' eye on things than any human's optics. It always reveals to me that, whenever I think I'm getting anywhere with my modelling, my soldering looks like relief maps of the moon, my ability to get everything parallel, straight and true is abysmal, my painting looks daubed-on and my attention to 'accuracy' reveals negligence! Also, I don't have the least idea how to use a duster! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error
  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

It is a good thing we don't all model the same but can enjoy what we do. A Whistler fan could tell you what is wrong with these two, I know what is wrong as I built them both. I do like seeing them stretching their legs.

Clive

 

Lack of connecting gangway connections, and a drunk painter in the carriage paintshop!

 

Lloyd

  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

215301000_A260533Grantham28.6_58.jpg.0a1062d4bb4f869b3a6e0a362b1d8b89.jpg

 

At Grantham according to the notes, in 1958. However, how common were Stanier Fives at your depot? 

 

I'm not at all sure that is Grantham. If that a (former?) turntable pit in the foreground, then I think I'm right in saying that the one at Grantham was filled in post-1950 for the road to and from the turning triangle to run.

 

Is it not York? Logical place for the A2 to run to and would explain the presence of the Black 5.

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The point was made of late about manufacturers 'getting things wrong' and that 'ignorance' often means that those things went unnoticed; by those who don't know, don't particularly want to know and don't care. 

 

I'm asked on frequent occasions if I can 'fix' things which have broken/ceased to work/been damaged/are inaccurate or any other things folk think I'm capable of repairing/altering/making good and so on....................

 

If successful, a modest donation to CRUK is requested.

 

Last month a friend brought along a Crownline A2/3 which he and a friend of his had built/painted between them, with a request of 'Can you repair this, please?'.  

 

1797865107_CrownlineA2360523SUNCASTLE.jpg.ec8d2fd7ae9a82b9455e08dc4f22e6cb.jpg

 

The expansion link on this side had broken in two, effectively making the loco something of a 'pole-vaulter' when it ran, as the forward end of the eccentric rod attempted to dig into the ballast! Fixing it took no more than 15 minutes, with a substitute expansion link from a Morgan Gilbert fret, a nut and bolt and a dab of solder. 

 

But, what's this got to do with inaccuracies and things which are wrong? I state right now that I have no wish to be disparaging about my friend's work and his friend's work (it's all theirs, after all), but look at the proportions of the lower cabside. The lining rectangle is 'landscape' when it should (as near as makes no difference) be 'portrait'. This is caused by the cab proportions themselves being wrong (not helped by the Isinglass drawing - from which this kit was designed I'm told - having different dimensions on both cabsides). Effectively, the horizontal handrails (for which etched holes for the pillars are provided) are far too low. 

 

Every kit I've seen of an A2/3 built from this source (and PDK) shows this error. Again, I have no wish to be disparaging to a manufacturer, but this is clearly wrong. 

 

391737883_CrownlineA2360500EDWARDTHOMPSON.jpg.b4a2c53dd8685c2c6feede5b100cb773.jpg

 

In 1999, I built a Crownline A2/3 (and an A2/2), and my review(s) appeared in the RM. I don't think either Crownline's proprietor or Isinglass' proprietor were delighted by my comments, but there you go. 

 

Anyway, here it is above. What did I do to alter the 'look' of the cabside? Plugged the holes with solder and re-drilled higher-up holes for the pillars. It means the rails are too close to the base of the windows, but the eye reads the proportions as being much more 'realistic'. 

 

The whole lot, of course, is made 'acceptable' by Ian Rathbone's superlative painting. 

 

Since I dislike resin as a modelling medium, I substituted a SE Finecast A2 cast metal boiler for the 'Milky Bar' one supplied! 

 

Does all this 'prove' anything? Only that observation of the prototype is paramount................

 

 

  • Like 6
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, LNER4479 said:

I'm not at all sure that is Grantham. If that a (former?) turntable pit in the foreground, then I think I'm right in saying that the one at Grantham was filled in post-1950 for the road to and from the turning triangle to run.

 

Is it not York? Logical place for the A2 to run to and would explain the presence of the Black 5.

 

It could well be York, Graham.

 

I was quoting the notes on the scan - a very dangerous thing to do!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

My point is that those who struggle to apply transfers can console themselves that the prototype was far from perfect!

 

John Isherwood.

 

Yes I know, I was not being serious, Perhaps they should have gloss varnished the van before applying the transfers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
27 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

My point is that those who struggle to apply transfers can console themselves that the prototype was far from perfect!

 

John Isherwood.

Some weren't straight either.  There's a picture of a Gresley coach on John Turner's Flickr site with a distinct slope in the lining from end to end.

 

Eric

Edited by TheSignalEngineer
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Headstock said:

It looks like the jumper cables have been removed.

I don't know whether they had them fitted originally. Photos I have seen have nothing or just the junction boxes in the case of one in LNER livery. The two pictures of the D170 I particularly remember did have jumpers.

 

Eric

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...