RCTS Photograph Archive

[Clive Mortimore]

Today I have been plodding through the RCTS Photograph Archive. https://www.rcts.org.uk/features/archive/index.htm

They have a collection of really useful first generation DMU photos. The side on views of centre cars are really helpful for us modellers. The only trouble who ever catalogued their collection  has made quite a few errors. Example is the class 108 Derby short underframe low density units. This section includes most the Derby fronted units , including the Gloucester single car 122s, some BRCW 104s, at least one Gloucester 100 and quite a few Met-Cam 101s. Any unit with two front windows appears to be a Cravens 105.

The loco section is not quite as bad, a few class 40s and a Peak are in the class 37 section as unidentified 37s. 

Is there a RMweb member who is also a RCTS member who can act as liaison between us (RMweb) or me and them (RCTS) so that this really useful resource is less of a muddle?

Edited April 24, 2018 by Clive Mortimore

[Jim76]

Yes there are some real clangers. Class 76s are down as Class 26s and Class 506s are down as Class 306s. Jim

[chrisf]

No, I'm not putting my hand up for this but I do know that responsibility for cataloguing is spread widely.  Until the death of Cyril Crawley a few years ago I was on the Mystery Photographs panel for my sins and hope that my contribution was useful albeit modest.  I understand that the job of cataloguing the Michael Mensing collection has been farmed out widely, this despite the good records that Michael left.

 

It's not just the RCTS collection that contains howlers.  The Colour-Rail collection is not immune from human error either.  Only yesterday I found some more dodgy specimens whilst trawling the site to help me identify the location of some images that I have been invited to caption for a magazine.  I'm sure Paul Chancellor will correct them when I bring them to his attention.

 

There is also the factor that some people do not want to know about mistakes.  I keep finding them in one particular magazine and feel duty bound to draw them to the attention of the editor.  If he is grateful this has not been reflected so far in publication of the letters.

 

Clive, I suspect that the best thing for you to do is report the errors that you have found to the RCTS directly.  I do not know the proper channel for this but will ask.

 

Chris

[Clive Mortimore]

No, I'm not putting my hand up for this but I do know that responsibility for cataloguing is spread widely.  Until the death of Cyril Crawley a few years ago I was on the Mystery Photographs panel for my sins and hope that my contribution was useful albeit modest.  I understand that the job of cataloguing the Michael Mensing collection has been farmed out widely, this despite the good records that Michael left.

 

It's not just the RCTS collection that contains howlers.  The Colour-Rail collection is not immune from human error either.  Only yesterday I found some more dodgy specimens whilst trawling the site to help me identify the location of some images that I have been invited to caption for a magazine.  I'm sure Paul Chancellor will correct them when I bring them to his attention.

 

There is also the factor that some people do not want to know about mistakes.  I keep finding them in one particular magazine and feel duty bound to draw them to the attention of the editor.  If he is grateful this has not been reflected so far in publication of the letters.

 

Clive, I suspect that the best thing for you to do is report the errors that you have found to the RCTS directly.  I do not know the proper channel for this but will ask.

 

Chris

Hi Chris

 

Thank you.

 

Looks like I have given myself a job.

 

Edit, and I have to look at those nice photos again.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Clive Mortimore

[EddieB]

I'd agree with chrisf that any errors should be notified to the RCTS.

 

I'm not a member, but have also contributed to various themes (mystery photographs, departmentals, sales overseas etc.).  It's a valuable resource, but only as good as the pooled knowledge available.  I'd guess that those who have done their best to apply accurate captions have other areas of expertise, and their familiarity with first-generation DMUs may not be as comprehensive as the OP's.  Contributing something in return for being able to access the pictures is, I'd say, a pretty fair trade-off.

 

Equally (spooky really), I also have one bête noir magazine, whose staff writers dislike being corrected by mere amateurs.

Edited April 25, 2018 by EddieB