Dave F's photos - ongoing - more added each day

[sb67]

 

This picture is so atmospheric, so much to see in a small area. Could easily be the basis of a micro layout, thanks for sharing. 

 

 

 

[DaveF]

The ECML in Northumberland again today.

 

The fourth and fifth photos show the same train, one taken by me, one by Dad.  I am using them as an example of the problems of colour matching from photos.  They were taken a few seconds apart on the same type of film (Agfa) and the same make of camera (Minolta).  They were taken using shutter priority, ie you set the shutter speed, the camera sets the aperture.

 

The two photos are quite different in terms of colour rendition.

 

 

Southside 91009 running reversed down 16th July 94 C19524

 

 

Shilbottle Lane 56046 up March 93 J13767

 

 

Rock Class 91 down 13th April 96 C20879

 

 

Newham Class 91 up April 93 J13836

 

 

Newham  Class 91 up 7th April 93 C18417

 

 

Newham Class 91 up 7th April 93 C18416

 

 

David

 

 

Edited April 23, 2022 by DaveF

[corneliuslundie]

Definitely a nicer day in the second photo. Imagine how much difference there could have been if one of you was using Agfa and the other Boots film. And if it had been a certain other brand the reds would have jumped out at you.

Jonathan

[Market65]

Good evening, David. That’s a most excellent selection of photo’s of the ECML in Northumberland. In C20879, at Rock, with a class 91, heading a down express on the 13th April, 1996, you have caught a delightful three quarters portrait of the train.

The two photo’s using different shutter priorities do show two rather different views of the same train and surrounding countryside. I think yours has a brighter and more natural look to it, compared to your Dad’s setting. His is ‘darker’, although there is some cloud detail to be seen in the sky. 
 

With warmest regards,

 

 Rob.

[Davexoc]

Nice comparison, and the camera never lies. I reckon you were stood on the left and had a slightly longer exposure by one or two stops?

If you were two stops apart, I reckon half way between the two would have been the best compromise in foreground versus background exposure.

[DaveF]

21 minutes ago, Davexoc said:

Nice comparison, and the camera never lies. I reckon you were stood on the left and had a slightly longer exposure by one or two stops?

If you were two stops apart, I reckon half way between the two would have been the best compromise in foreground versus background exposure.

 

Looking at the photos I agree I was standing just to the left of Dad.  I think the exposure was about a stop different.

 

I too think that the best exposure would have been halfway between the two.

 

It always surprises me how the exposure can vary by moving the camera only a few degrees to one side or up/down.

 

David.

Edited November 6, 2021 by DaveF

[DaveF]

 

It's Sunday so here are usual morning photos, this time from the Great Central at Loughborough and Quorn.

 

Sometimes it is quite sobering to think how old some of the people in my photographs must be now.

 

 

Loughborough Central  RSH rebuilt as GCR 39  April 79 J6421

 

 

Loughborough Central Class 14 D9523 10th June 89 C11987

 

 

Loughborough Central Hunslet Robert Nelson No 4  March 75 J4164

 

 

Loughborough Central N2 4744 April 83 C5991

 

 

Loughborough Central Sentinel Alan Grice 10th June 89 C11984

 

 

Quorn and Woodhouse N2 4744 Sept 78 J6335

 

 

David

Edited April 23, 2022 by DaveF

[DaveF]

 

Newcastle Central once again for your Sunday teatime photos.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what happened here, I will have another look for the photos.

 

 

David

Edited April 23, 2022 by DaveF

[Market65]

Good evening, David. That’s a most impressive set of photo’s of the Great Central Railway. The first photo’ at Loughborough Central, with RSH, rebuilt as GCR, 39, in April, 1979, is a delightful portrait shot of the engine. I can only guess that the history of the locomotive is given on the notice that can be seen on the edge of the footplate.

The Newcastle Central photo’s are excellent, and in C11785, with class 47, 47585, on a down light engine movement, going away, on the 7th March, 1989, shows a jacket hung up in the rear cab, on the bulkhead, and, I think, your shadow too, David.

 

With warmest regards,

 

 Rob.

[DaveF]

 

On the 2nd June 2004 I spent an hour or so at Pegswood, on the ECML north of Morpeth in Northumberland.

 

The first photos were taken looking north west from the road overbridge at the north end of the station.  On the left is the site of the old pit.

 

The remaining photos were taken from the platform.  

 

You may wish to amuse yourself by looking up the stopping train timetable.  The service could be described as very infrequent.

 

 

PegswoodGNER DVT and Class 91 up 2nd June 2004 IMG_3690

 

 

Pegswood Virgin Class 221 up 2nd June 2004 IMG_3691

 

 

Pegswood GNER Class 43 down 2nd June 2004 IMG_3692

 

 

Pegswood GNER Class 43 down going away 2nd June 2004 IMG_3693

 

 

Pegswood EWS 66223 upcoal 2nd June 2004 IMG_3694

 

 

Pegswood Virgin Class 220 down 2nd June 2004 IMG_3695

 

 

David

Edited April 23, 2022 by DaveF

[Market65]

Good evening, David. That’s an excellent selection of photo’s of Pegswood, on the ECML, north of Morpeth, on the 2nd June, 2004. The last one of a down Virgin Voyager, has inside frame bogies, and is only four carriages long. It fits the criteria of a class 220 rather than a 221. 
 

With warmest regards,

 

 Rob.

[Davexoc]

6 hours ago, DaveF said:

Pegswood GNER Class 43 down 2nd June 2004 IMG_3692

 

That must be the shortest namer in the GNER fleet - 43095 'Perth'

[DaveF]

 

Clifton today, on the WCML south of Penrith

 

The photos were taken on 27th July 2004.

 

 

 

Clifton DRS Class 37 and Class 66 down l e 27th July 2004  Img_4176

 

 

 

Clifton EWS 66223 up p w in loop  27th July 2004 IMG_4178

 

 

 

Clifton  Virgin Class 221 up27th July 2004 IMG_4181

 

 

 

Clifton Virgin Class 221 up and 66223 up p w 27th July 2004 IMG_4182

 

 

 

Clifton Virgin Class 220 up 27th July 2004 IMG_4184

 

 

David

Edited April 23, 2022 by DaveF

[Market65]

Good evening, David. That is a most impressive set of photo’s of Clifton, to the south of Penrith, on the WCML, as on the 27th July, 2004. The first photo’ of DRS engines class 37 and a class 66 down light engines, has the two popular liveries of DRS on view. The remaining photo’s show Voyagers overtaking a looped class 66 and it’s train, showing how freights are held in the loop at Clifton to allow express passenger services to have priorities. 

 

With warmest regards,

 

 Rob.

P.S. I’m having to be careful not to click that huge ‘back to the top’ button on the lower right of the box I’m typing in on my iPad. 
 

 

[DaveF]

In late July 2004 I took a number of photos at Seascale on the Cumbrian Coast line.

 

 

 

Seascale Class 156 Carlisle to Barrow 27th July 2004 IMG_4185

 

 

 

Seascale Carlisle to Barrow 27th July 2004 IMG_4188

 

 

 

Seascale Class 156 Carlisle to Barrow going away 27th July 2004 IMG_4189

 

 

 

Seascale looking south 27th July 2004 IMG_4198

 

 

 

Seascale Class 153 Carlisle to Barrow 29th July 2004 IMG_4348

 

 

David

Edited April 23, 2022 by DaveF

[lmsforever]

Its hard to   imagine that when built Seascale was to be a massive holiday resort to rival blackpool but did not even get off the starting blocks. location weather and a public who did not want to go there perhaps it was timely that it did not happen.  The  holidaymakers would not have apreciated a certain complex that is just up the coast that takes over the area .

[Market65]

Good evening, David. That’s a most excellent selection of photo’s of Seascale on the Cumbrian Coast line from late July, 2004. In IMG_4198, looking south 27th, July, you can see someone on the tracks. I hope he/she was not trespassing and that no serious incident happened.

 

With warmest regards,

 

 Rob.

[DaveF]

24 minutes ago, Market65 said:

Good evening, David. That’s a most excellent selection of photo’s of Seascale on the Cumbrian Coast line from late July, 2004. In IMG_4198, looking south 27th, July, you can see someone on the tracks. I hope he/she was not trespassing and that no serious incident happened.

 

With warmest regards,

 

 Rob.

 

As far as I can see from the original scan he was crossing the track to get to the down platform - it's a long way round by the road underbridge and there aren't too many trains - but it is still not a good idea.

 

David

[cheesysmith]

On 04/11/2021 at 15:34, DaveF said:

 

Loughborough Midland Garratt 47989 up freight c1955 JBWImageU06

 

 

Loughborough Midland Ivatt 4MT 43045 down pass  1955  JMImageA04

 

 

David

 

 

 

These two Loughborough photos are wonderful, just for the little details that they contain.

 

The Garret with slope sided minerals for the first few wagons. Also the Ivatt with some motley coaches that look to have been around forever.

 

Also, notice the main fast lines have been re-laid with flat bottom rail, but the goods lines are still bullhead. And all these people who keep moaning for Peco bullhead track, how much of the rail was being re-laid even in the 50s with flat bottomed track?

[DaveF]

Photos around Ulgham Lane crossing today.

 

 

 

Ulgham Lane crossing 47362 up ICI tanks May 90 J10888

 

 

 

Ulgham Lane crossing probably 47063 not 47311. up SRPS special July 91 J12067

 

 

 

Ulgham Lane crossing 91008 downOct 92 J13520

 

 

 

Ulgham Lane crossing 56064 down steel 27th Aug 94 C19792

 

 

 

Ulgham Lane crossing 56118 and 56069 up coal 28th Oct 95 C20619   From memory the second loco was dead.

 

 

David

Edited April 23, 2022 by DaveF

[corneliuslundie]

Interesting to see both a brake van and a barrier wagon in the first photo.

And I assume that that road sign indicated that there was a bridge under the line rather than that the road just curved into the embankment.

And am I right in thinking that the five diesel locos are all in different liveries?

Jonathan

[DaveF]

15 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Interesting to see both a brake van and a barrier wagon in the first photo.

And I assume that that road sign indicated that there was a bridge under the line rather than that the road just curved into the embankment.

And am I right in thinking that the five diesel locos are all in different liveries?

Jonathan

The road sign is a warning that the road goes sharp left to go over the level crossing.  No bridge!

 

I think that 47 in photo 2 and the second 56 in the last photo may be in the same livery, but am not sure.

 

David

[Fat Controller]

14 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Interesting to see both a brake van and a barrier wagon in the first photo.

And I assume that that road sign indicated that there was a bridge under the line rather than that the road just curved into the embankment.

And am I right in thinking that the five diesel locos are all in different liveries?

Jonathan

The train with the barrier and brake van had carried liquid ammonia from ICI on Teesside to Scottish Agricultural Industries at Leith. There was another van and barrier pairing at the other end, the reason being to avoid the guard having to walk past the tanks whilst proceeding to protect the rear of the train in the event of an incident.

[brushman47544]

19 hours ago, DaveF said:

 

Ulgham Lane crossing 47311 up SRPS special July 91 J12067

Six Bells Junction doesn’t list an SRPS railtour during July 91, but does list one for 29 June 91 from Edinburgh to York and back, to which 47063 was allocated, but asks if it ran! Your photo is probably that train because 47063 had those construction sector decals, whereas 47311 had RfD orange triangles.

Edited November 12, 2021 by brushman47544
Delete photos

[DaveF]

9 minutes ago, brushman47544 said:

Six Bells Junction doesn’t list an SRPS railtour during July 91, but does list one for 29 June 91 from Edinburgh to York and back, to which 47063 was allocated, but asks if it ran! Your photo is probably that train because 47063 had those construction sector decals, whereas 47313 had RfD orange triangles.

 

 

Thanks very much, as it was at the very end of the month it might easily have been recorded as July not June.

 

It could be 47063, I think Dad sometimes got the numbers wrong.

 

David