Wright writes.....

[t-b-g]

5 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Tony G

If you look at the pictures of Valour on ps 47-48 at an oblique angle the effect appears to be the same on both tender and cab (p47, July 1920) but more side on they look equally spaced in the photo (p48) in full GC livery at Kings Cross in her early days on the GN. Valour was shopped in 1922 so whether she was repainted and lined differently at that time? Also shopped later in 1923 but Yeadon indicates only a touch up on the full GC livery.

 

Andrew

 

As I have already said, the effect appears on some locos and not on others. I do find it interesting that two people can look at the same photo and see two different things. It happened a lot with Malcolm Crawley and me. We could look at the same photo and not agree on all sorts of things.

 

You are quite right about the angle making a difference.

 

The more side on you get the effect lessens until it is very slight, which is why I think people haven't picked up on it but I can still see it.

 

I did quote the wrong page number earlier. Look at P7 Vol. 2 at the tender on no. 435. The white lines do not have the same centres. There is no doubt on that one. That is almost side on and you really need that sort of angle and that sort of close up to be certain and not many photos were taken like that.

 

I heard about this many years ago and it came from somebody who used to line locos. It is something I have been looking for evidence for ever since I was told about it.

[Chamby]

Re: the effect of viewing angle on the spacing of lining, I concur that it is probably an optical effect.  If there was a deliberate adjustment of spacing to compensate for viewing at an angle, it would surely be to widen the spacing on vertical lining?

 

The Montreux Oberland Bahn in Switzerland used, until recently, a logo that took advantage of this phenomenon.  The logo itself was very elongated, looking odd when viewed straight on, but reading much more easily when viewed from an angle as would be the norm for most passengers on a platform:

 

 

 

Apologies for the poor depth of field, these photos taken using a mobile phone.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 28, 2021 by Chamby
Errant comma

[t-b-g]

33 minutes ago, Chamby said:

Re: the effect of viewing angle on the spacing of lining, I concur that it is probably an optical effect.  If there was a deliberate adjustment of spacing to compensate for viewing at an angle, it would surely be to widen the spacing on vertical lining?

 

The Montreux Oberland Bahn in Switzerland used, until recently, a logo that took advantage of this phenomenon.  The logo itself was very elongated, looking odd when viewed straight on, but reading much more easily when viewed from an angle as would be the norm for most passengers on a platform:

 

 

 

Apologies for the poor depth of field, these photos taken using a mobile phone.

 

 

 

 

 

That is quite a different trick.

 

The reason I was given was that if you have two lines, one short and one long one, that are both the same thickness, then the eye is tricked into thinking that the long one is thinner.

 

So making the shorter line thinner tricks the eye into thinking that they are the same.

 

It appears to work!

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, robertcwp said:

Oh dear! I do apologise for any inconvenience caused!

Not a problem, Robert,

 

Mo's the most-accommodating/understanding woman I know.

 

Would you mind posting the list of items you've left here on here please? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[PupCam]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

So, just an optical effect then?

 

Very interesting. I wonder, does the same effect appear on models?

 

I would say yes and one of your photographs almost perfectly replicates the situation - see the enlarged sample, the effect is quite clear.   

 

 

I did a little experiment yesterday and drew some "lining" out in Powerpoint.  For convenience I had to use square corners and I inserted a white line between the orange and black so that I could be certain that the lines were as correctly spaced as possible.   The printed sheet was then photographed at an oblique angle (or acute depending on your reference!) and the image dumped back into PP so that sizing circles could be "planted"  to show the relevant sizes between the horizontal and vertical lines.     The effect is clearly visible although I would say that the proportions are not the same - I'll blame that on object size, camera focal length differences and distance between the camera and the subject.     

 

 

Ultimate proof must surely be to;  go and find a suitable subject, careful photograph a representative bit of horizontal and vertical lining making sure the surface is normal to the camera axis, accurately measure the lining and then photograph it again from a suitable and typically oblique angle.   Inspect results very carefully ....

 

Alan

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, CF MRC said:

We do have ‘happy little clouds’ but not a pine tree in sight, but there are a few ‘little ol’ cabins’. 
 

The back scene is always being adapted, so is often ‘tweaked’ as I work in new ideas, but the view at the south end is very much looking west up the Thames valley.  It’s clearly a windy day so the air quality is good (for London…). Holloway is broadly where the viewer is positioned. 
 

Tim

"Oh it really is a werry pretty garden
And 'Endon to the westward could be seen
And by clinging to the chimbley
You could see across to Wembley
If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between."

[t-b-g]

27 minutes ago, PupCam said:

 

I would say yes and one of your photographs almost perfectly replicates the situation - see the enlarged sample, the effect is quite clear.   

 

 

I did a little experiment yesterday and drew some "lining" out in Powerpoint.  For convenience I had to use square corners and I inserted a white line between the orange and black so that I could be certain that the lines were as correctly spaced as possible.   The printed sheet was then photographed at an oblique angle (or acute depending on your reference!) and the image dumped back into PP so that sizing circles could be "planted"  to show the relevant sizes between the horizontal and vertical lines.     The effect is clearly visible although I would say that the proportions are not the same - I'll blame that on object size, camera focal length differences and distance between the camera and the subject.     

 

 

Ultimate proof must surely be to;  go and find a suitable subject, careful photograph a representative bit of horizontal and vertical lining making sure the surface is normal to the camera axis, accurately measure the lining and then photograph it again from a suitable and typically oblique angle.   Inspect results very carefully ....

 

Alan

 

I would still say that the curved orange lines on the real thing close up together far more than your drawn example or the model.

 

The model has clearly wider lining along the bottom as you can see the a step in the orange lines where it goes from the curved bit to the straight bit.

 

Looking at the prototype photo, I could convince myself that the green between the orange and black tapers down to almost nothing as it reaches the corner and there seems to be little or no green visible on the vertical section.

 

Still, it may just be an optical illusion and I may be talking rubbish. It has been known!

 

 

[cctransuk]

14 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I would still say that the curved orange lines on the real thing close up together far more than your drawn example or the model.

 

The model has clearly wider lining along the bottom as you can see the a step in the orange lines where it goes from the curved bit to the straight bit.

 

Looking at the prototype photo, I could convince myself that the green between the orange and black tapers down to almost nothing as it reaches the corner and there seems to be little or no green visible on the vertical section.

 

Still, it may just be an optical illusion and I may be talking rubbish. It has been known!

 

 

 

I'm sorry - but what we are spending so much time debating is a simple concept - called perspective!

 

I am surprised, to say the least, that this well known visual effect has given rise to any comment whatsoever.

 

Why on earth would BR painters - who had available a clear and concise printed specification to work from - go to the trouble to diverge from that spec. in a manner that would have made their job harder, in order to make the job look 'right'?

 

Unless someone can point me to some irrefutable evidence that this perceived 'tweaking' of the spec. was practiced, I for one will file this idea under 'Clupeidae : red', and dismiss it from my mind.

 

John Isherwood.

[Compound2632]

29 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

Why on earth would BR painters - who had available a clear and concise printed specification to work from - go to the trouble to diverge from that spec. in a manner that would have made their job harder, in order to make the job look 'right'?

 

Because they were laying everything out by eye, not measuring it out meticulously using the spec? They were experienced professionals whose principal object was to get the job done to an acceptable standard as quickly as possible.

 

I suspect that the optical illusion @t-b-g mentioned, of making the lines thinner on the shorter sides, probably works best for smaller panels. The eye wouldn't really take in the whole side of an 8-wheel tender, at least not when close enough to properly distinguish the lining, I suggest?

[t-b-g]

28 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

I'm sorry - but what we are spending so much time debating is a simple concept - called perspective!

 

I am surprised, to say the least, that this well known visual effect has given rise to any comment whatsoever.

 

Why on earth would BR painters - who had available a clear and concise printed specification to work from - go to the trouble to diverge from that spec. in a manner that would have made their job harder, in order to make the job look 'right'?

 

Unless someone can point me to some irrefutable evidence that this perceived 'tweaking' of the spec. was practiced, I for one will file this idea under 'Clupeidae : red', and dismiss it from my mind.

 

John Isherwood.

 

As I said, the only reason I even mentioned it was to provoke a discussion.

 

The information came to me via Malcolm Crawley who was told about it by a highly experienced loco liner while he was doing part of his apprenticeship in the Doncaster Plant paint shop in very late LNER/very early BR days.

 

He was clearly talking nonsense, knew nothing about lining locos and just made it up to baffle model makers 70 years later.

 

 

 

[LNER4479]

23 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Why on earth would BR painters - who had available a clear and concise printed specification to work from - go to the trouble to diverge from that spec. in a manner that would have made their job harder, in order to make the job look 'right'?

 

I'm in 98% agreement with this merely being a perspective effect.

 

However, I was going to comment anyway, but you've prompted me nicely:

 

'Painters' ... armed only with a tape measure, chalk line, lining brush and maulstick. Sure, the vast majority of them were skilled craftsman and undoubtedly took pride in their work but we're into the world of human frailty and I can quite easily live with the concept (having managed a fair few railway folk in my time) that 2% were either not quite so skilled, couldn't be bothered, were having an 'off' day (etc) leading to the one-off from which such legends are born.

 

(pic from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-35595691)

[Compound2632]

There's a danger in looking for a degree of perfection that simply isn't there...

[robertcwp]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Not a problem, Robert,

 

Mo's the most-accommodating/understanding woman I know.

 

Would you mind posting the list of items you've left here on here please? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

When I delivered the first lot of kits to Tony, I had no idea there was a self-storage unit with lots more railway stuff in it. Here is the list of what was delivered on Saturday:

 

 

[robertcwp]

PS - all the plastic wagon kits (over 250 of them) have now been sold, most going as a job-lot.

[chrisf]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

"Oh it really is a werry pretty garden
And 'Endon to the westward could be seen
And by clinging to the chimbley
You could see across to Wembley
If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between."

 

From the singing of Gus Elen as I recall.  You, sir, are a  man of culture.

 

Chris

[cctransuk]

7 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

I'm in 98% agreement with this merely being a perspective effect.

 

However, I was going to comment anyway, but you've prompted me nicely:

 

'Painters' ... armed only with a tape measure, chalk line, lining brush and maulstick. Sure, the vast majority of them were skilled craftsman and undoubtedly took pride in their work but we're into the world of human frailty and I can quite easily live with the concept (having managed a fair few railway folk in my time) that 2% were either not quite so skilled, couldn't be bothered, were having an 'off' day (etc) leading to the one-off from which such legends are born.

 

(pic from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-35595691)

 

That, I would agree with 100%.

 

John Isherwood.

[LNER4479]

5 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

When I delivered the first lot of kits to Tony, I had no idea there was a self-storage unit with lots more railway stuff in it. Here is the list of what was delivered on Saturday:

 

 

Oh my gawd ... No wonder Mo went ballistic 

 

What on earth was this guy planning to build?

 

Lumme, so many more tempting morsels there ...

[t-b-g]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/790_HARDWICKE_National_Railway_Museum_(1).jpg

 

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-790-hardwicke-built-1892-lms-no-5031-withdrawn-1932-see-here-currently-42028273.html

 

I have blown the second image up to a huge size on my screen and the lining on the upper cab side is 7mm wide in the vertical and 8mm wide in the horizontal directions.

 

The lower cab lining is the same.

 

I can't say if it is deliberate or accidental but it is no optical illusion at that angle!

 

Edit to add, could it by my computer screen compressing images in an unequal way?

Edited June 28, 2021 by t-b-g
To add content

[Compound2632]

When was Hardwicke last painted and lined?

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, PupCam said:

 

I would say yes and one of your photographs almost perfectly replicates the situation - see the enlarged sample, the effect is quite clear.   

 

 

I did a little experiment yesterday and drew some "lining" out in Powerpoint.  For convenience I had to use square corners and I inserted a white line between the orange and black so that I could be certain that the lines were as correctly spaced as possible.   The printed sheet was then photographed at an oblique angle (or acute depending on your reference!) and the image dumped back into PP so that sizing circles could be "planted"  to show the relevant sizes between the horizontal and vertical lines.     The effect is clearly visible although I would say that the proportions are not the same - I'll blame that on object size, camera focal length differences and distance between the camera and the subject.     

 

 

Ultimate proof must surely be to;  go and find a suitable subject, careful photograph a representative bit of horizontal and vertical lining making sure the surface is normal to the camera axis, accurately measure the lining and then photograph it again from a suitable and typically oblique angle.   Inspect results very carefully ....

 

Alan

Many thanks Alan,

 

Very interesting.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

As I said, the only reason I even mentioned it was to provoke a discussion.

 

The information came to me via Malcolm Crawley who was told about it by a highly experienced loco liner while he was doing part of his apprenticeship in the Doncaster Plant paint shop in very late LNER/very early BR days.

 

He was clearly talking nonsense, knew nothing about lining locos and just made it up to baffle model makers 70 years later.

 

 

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

'He was clearly talking nonsense, knew nothing about lining locos and just made it up to baffle model makers 70 years later.'

 

Really (stated with a tiny degree of irony)? That's not the Malcolm Crawley I knew! First-hand knowledge is invaluable, and he had it in spades.................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, robertcwp said:

When I delivered the first lot of kits to Tony, I had no idea there was a self-storage unit with lots more railway stuff in it. Here is the list of what was delivered on Saturday:

 

 

Thanks Robert,

 

I need a bigger house! Though, I very much hope, not another wife! 

 

The boxes are being shifted to sit underneath Little Bytham. 

 

If anyone is interested in any of these items, please PM me. Though much of the original stash has been sold, there's still a lot left from that (mainly Brassmasters and Bradwell items). 

 

I'm afraid we might be left with quite a bit, so a job-lot to a trader in the end? I know this thread isn't (or shouldn't be) a commercial buy/sell one, but 10% of anything made goes to CRUK (already, well over £100.00!). 

 

I find it hard to believe what the chap in question (who bought all these) had in mind for the future. Something Scottish/Borders, but which period? Not only that, in P4 as well!

 

Anyway, I'll do my best. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

P. S. One Pro-Scale A3 and the Caley Full brake have already been sold!  

 

 

Edited June 28, 2021 by Tony Wright
to add something

[t-b-g]

5 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Tony,

 

'He was clearly talking nonsense, knew nothing about lining locos and just made it up to baffle model makers 70 years later.'

 

Really (stated with a tiny degree of irony)? That's not the Malcolm Crawley I knew! First-hand knowledge is invaluable, and he had it in spades.................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Quite right Tony. I was going for a bit of irony too!

 

If it had come from a lesser source I would have doubted it myself. From Malcolm, I listened and took things on board.

 

It is one of those little things that I am sure in my own mind I am right about but if I don't have enough evidence to convince others, I am happy to let them make up their own minds.

 

I have probably run out of things to say about it now so unless anybody else wants to have a say, I will leave it there.

[Tony Wright]

It looks like another of the Pro-Scale A3s has gone!

[mattingleycustom]

3 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

I'm in 98% agreement with this merely being a perspective effect.

 

However, I was going to comment anyway, but you've prompted me nicely:

 

'Painters' ... armed only with a tape measure, chalk line, lining brush and maulstick. Sure, the vast majority of them were skilled craftsman and undoubtedly took pride in their work but we're into the world of human frailty and I can quite easily live with the concept (having managed a fair few railway folk in my time) that 2% were either not quite so skilled, couldn't be bothered, were having an 'off' day (etc) leading to the one-off from which such legends are born.

 

(pic from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-35595691)

 

This painter has made a lovely job of the numerals on this A3, but alas he's painted it the wrong shade of green, the lining is all wrong and the number should be 4472 ... and I thought my eyes were bad! ...

... I'll get my coat!

 

Glenn