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

7 minutes ago, polybear said:

 

Bearing in mind paint was mixed by hand then I'd say the above is spot on - there were no computer controlled paint mixing machines that measured every ingredient to the nth degree.

Even today, manufacturers such as Dulux warn against starting a new tin of paint mid-job/mid-wall etc. as there can be slight shade variations - and they do use computer controlled equipment.

 

And, when presented with a small amount of any of the ingredients left in the bottom of the tin/drum/barrel, there'd have been a natural tendency to chuck it into the mix rather than let it go to waste.

 

Especially so if the container had to be cleaned out for re-use...

 

John

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

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

Over the years, it has become abundantly clear to me that, for any assortment of railway models finished in grey to be representative of reality, the shade should wander about all over the place...

 

John

 

Good morning John,

 

 That is exactly what I'm saying and it is just as applicable to warships. To reiterate what I said, you would run out of fingers and toes trying to count the numbers of supposed battleship greys that ships were painted. Associating the Hush Hush with battleship grey is meaningless, which battleship grey? 

 

The Hush Hush was a single locomotive, I doubt if the shade  wandered about too much. In contrast, the shade that HMS Hood was painted varied quite a lot over its career, just look at the paint layers discovered on HMS Caroline. The scheme that Hood carried when it was sunk was discontinued from 1942, it would have been unfamiliar to anybody who saw a battleship in the post war period. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

I'm not convinced on the fatally flawed angle either. If the curator of the Battlship New Jersey museum and memorial, believes that USS New Jersey could have been destroyed in similar circumstances, you have to except that the hit that sunk Hood was the luckiest shot in Naval history.


Should that not be the Arizona rather than the New Jersey… 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Dapol produce a very fine model of a Class 21/ D61xx. It was released just before Covid so pretty recent. Here is mine running on Gresley Jn. I’m not sure if this is prototypically accurate as I can only find one picture of the real things running on the GN  - and that was on a railtour!

 

2711936E-F3AB-44E5-9B19-7AC264FBF44A.jpeg.f9a4ca3e897e4d12432dd9cdad360964.jpeg

Thanks Andy,

 

I believe the first batch were initially allocated to the south end of the GN, for suburban work, replacing the N2s. However, such was their unreliability, that they were 'dumped' at Hornsey (Clive Mortimer will know far more about this than I do) with an edict that they should be placed 'out of sight' of the travelling public; presumably in sidings behind other vehicles? 

 

I never saw one, but into the '60s, the same thing happened to the 'Baby Deltics', where almost the whole class were to be found on a remote siding at Stratford (why didn't I take a picture?). 

 

Your model looks very (nicely) well-weathered, but that coupling...................! Wouldn't a discreet wire loop suffice?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have in my collection a number of pics of class 21 (none of which I can put on here due to copyright). As my interest is centred on Cambridge, I have concentrated mainly on there, but also covering W.Anglia & GN to KGX. They certainly worked to CBG, and I have quite a few underlined in my 'abc'.

 

Stewart

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

No.

 

My bad, I'd not seen the New Jersey Museum referred to as a memorial before but I see from their website that it is.

 

With regards to battleship colours, to this day there are endless arguments as to which colour the USS Arizona was painted when she sank at Pearl Harbor.

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

Regarding Hush Hush...

 

After a lengthy discussion, we have arrived at the conclusion that ‘Battleship Grey’ is a general moniker for a range of shades rather than a specific colour.

 

Also, the specific grey used on Hush Hush was a mix of black and white pigment pastes.

 

This discussion could be a long one...  I assume that pantones were not yet in use at the time?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning John,

 

 That is exactly what I'm saying and it is just as applicable to warships. To reiterate what I said, you would run out of fingers and toes trying to count the numbers of supposed battleship greys that ships were painted. Associating the Hush Hush with battleship grey is meaningless, which battleship grey? 

 

The Hush Hush was a single locomotive, I doubt if the shade  wandered about too much. In contrast, the shade that HMS Hood was painted varied quite a lot over its career, just look at the paint layers discovered on HMS Caroline. The scheme that Hood carried when it was sunk was discontinued from 1942, it would have been unfamiliar to anybody who saw a battleship in the post war period. 

Absolutely. Given 10000's relatively short career in its original form, I doubt it got repainted more than a couple of times, at most.

 

From a modelling standpoint, at this remove, if agreement cannot be reached as to whether the buffer beams were painted grey or red, (or both at different times), establishing the exact shade of grey it carried (and when) will be akin to herding unicorns. Colour photography was still in its infancy at the time, and I wouldn't wholly trust even a Kodachrome original ninety years on, even if one existed. Kodachrome was only introduced two years before 10000 was rebuilt! 

 

No idea if it's "right" but I think the dark shade applied to the first of Tony's photo sequence looks most appropriate for a large imposing locomotive. The lighter ones rather smack of "Photographic" grey to me.

 

John

 

 

Edited by Dunsignalling
tense
  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Andy,

 

I believe the first batch were initially allocated to the south end of the GN, for suburban work, replacing the N2s. However, such was their unreliability, that they were 'dumped' at Hornsey (Clive Mortimer will know far more about this than I do) with an edict that they should be placed 'out of sight' of the travelling public; presumably in sidings behind other vehicles? 

 

I never saw one, but into the '60s, the same thing happened to the 'Baby Deltics', where almost the whole class were to be found on a remote siding at Stratford (why didn't I take a picture?). 

 

Your model looks very (nicely) well-weathered, but that coupling...................! Wouldn't a discreet wire loop suffice?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony,

 

The first ten, D6100-6109 were allocated to Hornsey (which is my justification for having one) and the next ten to somewhere on the GE. They didn’t last long before being dumped and then banished to Scotland. Thanks to Stewart Ingram for confirmation that they did actually work some service trains.

 

As for the coupling, you’re quite right. I think the other end has been done but it had just run round the quad art set so showing off the ‘ugly’ end. That’s the problem with diesels - they can work either way!

 

Andy

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Erichill16 said:

According to Modern Railways Pictorial, Profile :10 The Blue Pullmans, the engines are NBL/MAN L12V18/21BS which are the same as those fitted to the pilot scheme D61XX. This may be a typo but I don’t have any further books on the Blue Pullmans.

Hugh Dady describes MAN ‘as the ‘Daddy’ of Diesel engine companies’ He doesn’t describe the NBL prime mover department. The  illegitimate son?

Looking at my Platform 5 book of German railways MAN supplied very few Diesel engines for main line locomotives, the V160 family were mainly powered by MTU.

Robert

Robert

MRPP will have just trotted out the official information from when the Blue Pullmans were introduced. BR probably did not want to admit that the engines were made in Germany, but for the Blue Pullmans they were. All NBL had was a licence to produce the same design in the UK, albeit they did not do it very well it seems. NBL also had a licence from Voith for making hydraulic transmissions.

 

Similar issues applied regarding Maybach engines used in other diesel hydraulics, which were made under licence by Bristol-Siddeley as importing engines from Germany was not politically acceptable at the time.

 

It's interesting how the various brands have evolved in the ensuing decades. I believe MAN (Maschinenfabrik Augsburg-Nürnberg) now owns Paxman.  The Maybach brand went elsewhere but they were I believe made by MTU (Motoren- und Turbinen-Union) whose engines went into lots of HSTs in place of Paxman ones. MTU is I believe now owned by Rolls-Royce.

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

Just briefly, following the mention of paint colour and left-overs:

 

“And, when presented with a small amount of any of the ingredients left in the bottom of the tin/drum/barrel, there'd have been a natural tendency to chuck it into the mix rather than let it go to waste.  Especially so if the container had to be cleaned out for re-use...”

 

 

I'm told by someone who worked at Acton that the 'reddish' roof colour that sometimes [not always] appeared on newly-overhauled Met locos and Underground stock during the 1950s and 1960s as an alternative to grey was not a single 'colour'.   It was created by pouring all the unused contents of tins from a week's work in the Paint Shop into a spare drum and using this to complete the painting.  Maybe the goal was to minimise waste.  The dominant colour of the Paint Shop's work at the time was ’Railway Red’ but various proportions of other colours – Maroon, Metro Brown, Cerulean Blue, a couple of greys, White and Black were included.  Very soon in service, with weathering and tunnel dust and under ‘sky light’ it turned a greyish, darkish colour.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

That’s the problem with diesels - they can work either way!

 

 

That's not a problem. It's a distinct advantage and benefit.

;-)

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's clear that an interest in railways and an interest in warships often go together.

 

The 'battleship grey' debate can never be resolved. However, I think the debate the Hood can be resolved, at least to some extent in my opinion.

 

Though subjective, Hood was the finest looking capital ship ever built in my view. Her lines and proportions were perfect. Despite her looks, she was 'fatally-flawed'. The battlecruiser concept only works if the maxim 'faster than anything stronger and stronger than anything faster' is applied. This was proven at both The Falklands and at Jutland in WW1, but at the two extremes. 

 

Though it could be argued that Bismark's shell was 'lucky' in penetrating the aft 15" magazines of Hood (though there is evidence it was 8" shells from the Prinz Eugen which caused initial severe damage), such a shell would have not caused the Prince of Wales to blow up (nor the New Jersey). 

 

I must have read just about everything regarding the 1941 Denmark Strait engagement, and most accounts conclude that...........

 

Holland (who was in charge of the British ships) made just about mistake possible during the engagement. He should never have led with the Hood (indeed, Tovey - the Home Fleet's commander - had thought of suggesting leading with the Prince of Wales, knowing of the battlecruiser's vulnerability). By his angle of attack he restricted his guns to four 15" and six 14" barrels (instead of a potential 18 heavy guns). The German squadron was able to bear its full eight 15" and eight 8" guns. Hood never fired at the Bismark, again Holland's mistake. He fired at the Prinz Eugen (the German ships had changed order during the night to deter the tracking cruisers). He should have ordered 'independent action', something realised by Tovey just days later when King George the Fifth and Rodney pulverised the German capital ship to destruction. Why the two British shadowing cruisers took no part in the action is open to debate as well, and Holland's leaving astern his destroyers in the race to intercept Bismark is also open to question. The German ships' positions were known and a slower speed to intercept by the two British heavyweights would have meant the destroyers not being left behind (their torpedoes in an engagement would have been very useful). But, the main fact is that the venerable (and vulnerable) Hood was not designed to engage a battleship. Lucky shot or not, there was almost an inevitability about her blowing up; just as her smaller, and older, siblings had done so at Jutland.  

Edited by Tony Wright
to add something
  • Like 3
  • Agree 6
  • Informative/Useful 4
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Chamby said:

 

After a lengthy discussion, we have arrived at the conclusion that ‘Battleship Grey’ is a general moniker for a range of shades rather than a specific colour.

 

 

Indeed so - the same argument can rage for, inter alia, the correct grey for Midland Railway open wagons & vans...

 

Mark

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Chamby said:

Regarding Hush Hush...

 

After a lengthy discussion, we have arrived at the conclusion that ‘Battleship Grey’ is a general moniker for a range of shades rather than a specific colour.

 

Also, the specific grey used on Hush Hush was a mix of black and white pigment pastes.

 

This discussion could be a long one...  I assume that pantones were not yet in use at the time?

 

Good morning Phil,

 

exactly, I would add to that, the shade of grey used on the Hush Hush is quite well understood. There is little value in comparing it to anything else that might be grey such as a Battleship or an Elephant. The Bufferbeam was never red on Hush Hush, neither was the hull below the water line on HMS Hood, at the time of her sinking. You will see both inaccurately painted red on many models.

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

17 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

It's clear that an interest in railways and an interest in warships often go together.

 

Though subjective, Hood was the finest looking capital ship ever built in my view. Her lines and proportions were perfect.

 

Couldn't agree more about her looks.  As for a interest in both, this is in my 'to do' pile (along with the USS Iowa and Hornet in the same scale), Bachmann MK1 to give an idea of scale...

 

IMG_2947.jpeg.08799d5b667e0036521260d25556f04a.jpeg

  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the thread has strayed onto Hood on the Royal Navy, I think this video will be of great interest to some. The video looks into all possible theories about how and why the mighty Hood sank, and since the author is both a Naval historian and Naval engineer, I think is very creditable. Well worth a watch IMO

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

It's clear that an interest in railways and an interest in warships often go together.

 

The 'battleship grey' debate can never be resolved. However, I think the debate the Hood can be resolved, at least to some extent in my opinion.

 

Though subjective, Hood was the finest looking capital ship ever built in my view. Her lines and proportions were perfect. Despite her looks, she was 'fatally-flawed'. The battlecruiser concept only works if the maxim 'faster than anything stronger and stronger than anything faster' is applied. This was proven at both The Falklands and at Jutland in WW1, but at the two extremes. 

 

Though it could be argued that Bismark's shell was 'lucky' in penetrating the aft 15" magazines of Hood (though there is evidence it was 8" shells from the Prinz Eugen which caused initial severe damage), such a shell would have not caused the Prince of Wales to blow up (nor the New Jersey). 

 

I must have read just about everything regarding the 1941 Denmark Strait engagement, and most accounts conclude that...........

 

Holland (who was in charge of the British ships) made just about mistake possible during the engagement. He should never have led with the Hood (indeed, Tovey - the Home Fleet's commander - had thought of suggesting leading with the Prince of Wales, knowing of the battlecruiser's vulnerability). By his angle of attack he restricted his guns to four 15" and six 14" barrels (instead of a potential 18 heavy guns). The German squadron was able to bear its full eight 15" and eight 8" guns. Hood never fired at the Bismark, again Holland's mistake. He fired at the Prinz Eugen (the German ships had changed order during the night to deter the tracking cruisers). He should have ordered 'independent action', something realised by Tovey just days later when King George the Fifth and Rodney pulverised the German capital ship to destruction. Why the two British shadowing cruisers took no part in the action is open to debate as well, and Holland's leaving astern his destroyers in the race to intercept Bismark is also open to question. The German ships' positions were known and a slower speed to intercept by the two British heavyweights would have meant the destroyers not being left behind (their torpedoes in an engagement would have been very useful). But, the main fact is that the venerable (and vulnerable) Hood was not designed to engage a battleship. Lucky shot or not, there was almost an inevitability about her blowing up; just as her smaller, and older, siblings had done so at Jutland.  

 

Good morning Tony,

 

Hood was not a Battlecruiser in reality, just in name, she was no more fatally flawed than any Warship, non of which are unsinkable.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Tony,

 

Hood was not a Battlecruiser in reality, just in name, she was no more fatally flawed than any Warship, non of which are unsinkable.

Good morning Andrew,

 

I was merely going on the 'battlecruiser' description of her in every naval history I've ever read.

 

I agree, none is unsinkable, but Hood was more vulnerable than a battleship, particularly to plunging fire. That was known at the time, hence Holland's decision to try and close the range on Bismark as quickly as possible and why Tovey considered 'ordering' Holland to lead with the Prince of Wales during the engagement. He didn't, because of the vice-admiral's status. As it turned out, the mighty Hood, was fatally-flawed.

 

Ironically, she still exists, though in millions of pieces at the bottom of the Denmark Strait, as does the Bismark, much further away of course, and in far, far fewer bits. So does the Prince of Wales, even further away at the bottom of an eastern sea. The other participant, Prinz Eugen, ended up obliterated at Bikini, by an atom bomb! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

22 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andrew,

 

I was merely going on the 'battlecruiser' description of her in every naval history I've ever read.

 

I agree, none is unsinkable, but Hood was more vulnerable than a battleship, particularly to plunging fire. That was known at the time, hence Holland's decision to try and close the range on Bismark as quickly as possible and why Tovey considered 'ordering' Holland to lead with the Prince of Wales during the engagement. He didn't, because of the vice-admiral's status. As it turned out, the mighty Hood, was fatally-flawed.

 

Ironically, she still exists, though in millions of pieces at the bottom of the Denmark Strait, as does the Bismark, much further away of course, and in far, far fewer bits. So does the Prince of Wales, even further away at the bottom of an eastern sea. The other participant, Prinz Eugen, ended up obliterated at Bikini, by an atom bomb! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Actually the Prinz Eugen is remarkably complete, but upside down and just off a beach (the upturned hull is clearly visible).

 

It was said that the sinking of the Hood, was celebrated loudly on the Bismarck for only a few minutes.  It quickly registered to the crew what it meant; they knew that the sinking of the pride of the British Fleet would be swiftly avenged and that the chances of them seeing land, let alone home again, had just evaporated.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Andy,

 

Your model looks very (nicely) well-weathered, but that coupling...................! Wouldn't a discreet wire loop suffice?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Like these mods perhaps?  As described on the Class 21 thread.

 

IMG_20200112_143907.jpg.1e902d107694ea806f24d0ab7b876a39.jpg

 

 

IMG_20200112_143850.jpg.7960b75b54e0a1770d9e09b8a24e0a7a.jpg

 

Chas

Edited by ScRSG
  • Like 12
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

into the '60s, the same thing happened to the 'Baby Deltics', where almost the whole class were to be found on a remote siding at Stratford (why didn't I take a picture?). 

In 1974-75 I used to walk past the one at Derby most days on my way to and from work. I didn't take any pictures either. I can't even remember its number.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

In 1974-75 I used to walk past the one at Derby most days on my way to and from work. I didn't take any pictures either. I can't even remember its number.

 

D5901. I remember seeing it well and I hope I am remembering the number. It came to Doncaster for scrapping and somewhere I have very distant photos at Derby Research Centre, taken from the station platform, taken on the old Kodak Instamatic and a better one at Doncaster.

 

Have you seen the  "New build" one, which is well advanced? 

Edited by t-b-g
To add content
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
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...