Peterborough North

[great northern]

Falcon comes slowly round the curve. We don't want those pampered passengers getting soup in their laps, do we?

and Siver Fox waits, twelve minutes in total.

[great northern]

Prince of Wales has now emerged from under the roof, and during the short distance from the last image the headboard has managed to dive sideways.

which at least is not visble from this angle.

[great northern]

Very rarely do we get two A4s in shot at the same time, so there will be several cameras pointed at these two.

 

[Tony Wright]

On 31/01/2023 at 09:15, great northern said:

Close up of a rather run down A1.

And the 5.00pm KX-Newcastle, a Q train, which is required today, and will run into Platform 6, where it will dwell for quite a while.

Good morning Gilbert,

 

I rather like the rendition of SCOTTISH UNION; please pass on my compliments to Timara. 

 

When I was 'spotting at Retford, 60125 seemed to appear every day, usually on stoppers. 

 

Thus, when Bachmann first brought out its A1, I changed ABERDONIAN to SCOTTISH UNION (though 60158 was just as frequent a sight). 

 

 

I took things a bit further than renumbering/renaming/weathering, adding etched brass deflectors, better bogie wheels and all those wiggly pipes. I also raised the rear end of the footplate to more-nearly match the soleplate on the tender. 

 

Amazingly, this model still has the original (and mainly-replaced by Bachmann) motor, and it still runs fine, though I really don't use it. 

 

I think at its release, the RTR A1 was a step-forward for ER modellers. I have just this one (among over 20 A1s), how many do you have?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[great northern]

38 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Gilbert,

 

I rather like the rendition of SCOTTISH UNION; please pass on my compliments to Timara. 

 

When I was 'spotting at Retford, 60125 seemed to appear every day, usually on stoppers. 

 

Thus, when Bachmann first brought out its A1, I changed ABERDONIAN to SCOTTISH UNION (though 60158 was just as frequent a sight). 

 

 

I took things a bit further than renumbering/renaming/weathering, adding etched brass deflectors, better bogie wheels and all those wiggly pipes. I also raised the rear end of the footplate to more-nearly match the soleplate on the tender. 

 

Amazingly, this model still has the original (and mainly-replaced by Bachmann) motor, and it still runs fine, though I really don't use it. 

 

I think at its release, the RTR A1 was a step-forward for ER modellers. I have just this one (among over 20 A1s), how many do you have?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Good afternoon Tony. I now have 16, and there will be one more to come.. I entirely agree as to the effect the Bachmann model had when it first appeared, For those of us who do not have the ability to build kits to an acceptable standard, let alone paint them too, 16 would have been an impossible dream before then.  With half the class shedded at NE sheds or in Scotland, and rarely seen down south, I think 17 will be pretty representative. Mind you, when I think of the really commonly seen engines that I don't have, I still have to try to stop myself acquiring more.

[great northern]

A shortage of light means another shortage of images, so tonight we have one more view of the two A4s.

[great northern]

Back up on Crescent Bridge now for a last look at the White Rose before it sets off for London. This is the first shot from up here since Peter's last visit.

[great northern]

No light again today, so images are still rationed. Its back to Falcon tonight, and a head on shot which i think really suits an A4.

[great northern]

A view from the other bridge this morning. Very dark and rather dismal here again, typical February, but as I'm rapidly running out of images I think it is going to have to be artificial light again later this morning.

[30368]

Minor observation Gilbert. It seems that an increasing number of A3/4 pacifics photographed recently have been cleaned very well - are they all Kings Cross allocated? As always, the quality of the weathering/cleaning is just first class.

 

I may have missed something having just returned from getting some winter sun in the Canaries. I should add that Mrs B takes a dim view of keeping up with this website when on hols..

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

[great northern]

1 hour ago, 30368 said:

Minor observation Gilbert. It seems that an increasing number of A3/4 pacifics photographed recently have been cleaned very well - are they all Kings Cross allocated? As always, the quality of the weathering/cleaning is just first class.

 

I may have missed something having just returned from getting some winter sun in the Canaries. I should add that Mrs B takes a dim view of keeping up with this website when on hols..

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

On this page we have two very recently ex works locos, 60025 and 60054. KX and Grantham allocated. As always, generalisations can be dangerous, but I reckon both sheds would have kept these in top condition for a good while. Grantham actually also took pride in keeping at least its top link locos clean through the 50s, until 1959 when all cleaning abruptly ceased. Photos show and my memory confirms, that between 1959 and 1961 Grantham's A3s were a disgrace. 60017 is also KX, but is a special case. It was Dave Shakespeare's loco, and I shall do nothing to alter it.

[great northern]

The weather stayed dark and dismal, I ran some trains and took some photos, but I don't like them much. However, tomorrow's forecast has been transformed to wall to wall sunshine instead of more gloom, so things may improve. Still only one image tonight though, the Up Queen of Scots, without headboard as Copley Hill have lost it.

[davidw]

Hi Gilbert, 

 

I've probably asked before (. I can't remember the answer). But any chance that some of your time table be captured on video?

[great northern]

11 hours ago, davidw said:

Hi Gilbert, 

 

I've probably asked before (. I can't remember the answer). But any chance that some of your time table be captured on video?

Unlikely, I think. I really don't know how to do it, and get stressed when I try.

[great northern]

Another Copley Hill A1, Abbotsford this time, on the way home with the 5.18 Leeds.

Wall to wall sunshine as promised, so I hope to fill up the image store later.

[great northern]

While looking for something else entirely, I found the licence to publish images I received from Peterborough library. My tiny mind had forgotten this, and indeed was convinced that I could not put them on here. However, I can, which is good, as I need to seek your opinion on an important subject. So here is the one and only good image I have ever found showing at least part of Station road, with this caveat." Original photographs form part of the Kitchin collection held by Peterborough Archives Services. They are not to be copied without the permission of the copyright holder".

My question is about the tree on the right hand side of the image, which looks a bit strange. I have asked 4D model shop to make a bespoke model of it, and they are as puzzled as I am, and indeed asked me if there are two different trees and if it is the lower one I'm asking for. I have only one other image which helps at all, and that is the aerial photo Steve @31A found for me. That shows that this is the only tree at this end of Station Road, and I can see nothing in the background that could have got sort of superimposed over the top of it.

 

So, can you arboreal experts, or anyone else for that matter, make any suggestions about this?  What sort of tree is it?  Could it really be only one tree? The trunk seems rather narrow for something of this height, if it is one complete tree. The only other large trees around are right down on Station Approach, near the hotel, and the angle from which this image was taken does not seem to me to allow for one of those to be in shot.

[thegreenhowards]

The tree does look unusual Gilbert. Both halves look like sycamore or possibly Norway Maple but for it to have a gap in the middle like that it must have suffered some kind of trauma. I’d say it was possible, but if it’s possible that there is second tree behind, I’d say that was more likely explanation.

[AHW]

1 hour ago, great northern said:

While looking for something else entirely, I found the licence to publish images I received from Peterborough library. My tiny mind had forgotten this, and indeed was convinced that I could not put them on here. However, I can, which is good, as I need to seek your opinion on an important subject. So here is the one and only good image I have ever found showing at least part of Station road, with this caveat." Original photographs form part of the Kitchin collection held by Peterborough Archives Services. They are not to be copied without the permission of the copyright holder".

My question is about the tree on the right hand side of the image, which looks a bit strange. I have asked 4D model shop to make a bespoke model of it, and they are as puzzled as I am, and indeed asked me if there are two different trees and if it is the lower one I'm asking for. I have only one other image which helps at all, and that is the aerial photo Steve @31A found for me. That shows that this is the only tree at this end of Station Road, and I can see nothing in the background that could have got sort of superimposed over the top of it.

 

So, can you arboreal experts, or anyone else for that matter, make any suggestions about this?  What sort of tree is it?  Could it really be only one tree? The trunk seems rather narrow for something of this height, if it is one complete tree. The only other large trees around are right down on Station Approach, near the hotel, and the angle from which this image was taken does not seem to me to allow for one of those to be in shot.

So I would suggest that the reason for the tree's appearance is quite simple. The tree is close to the house. The lower half of the tree, more easily accessible from a standard gutter height ladder,  has been regularly pruned/trimmed and the top half has not.

 

The way you can tell is as follows. The lower leaves are quite dense but you can still pick out some individual branches which are short. The upper half of the tree shows lengthy branches in a more natural form - they have not been trimmed. If you consider the historical period being viewed here it makes sense. Someone who lived in the house wanted the tree kept under control, especially with a view to maintaining daylight. They were able to get at the lower branches more easily, possibly on a DIY basis. They cut them back hard, probably bi annually, and this encouraged lots of new growth, hence the dense leaf pattern. However they could either, not get easily at the top of the tree, or didn't think it through, or simply weren't bothered as the upper branches didn't obscure the windows.

 

The other thing to think about here is that whilst many ordinary working people of this period took great pride in their homes and gardening was a very popular pastime, they didn't actually spend time 'outside' in the way that we do today. They went outside for tasks such as weeding, mowing the lawn etc but went back inside for tea. I know this for a fact as my great uncle, once an 'inservice' head gardener and occasional footman at a country house in Norfolk, visited me in his 80's. He loved to be in the garden, but only when 'on task'. When I persuaded him to stop weeding for a cup of tea, he insisted on sitting inside the house for it (as did his wife). Therefore this tree needs to a) look neat and tidy and b) not obscure the windows too much but c) doesn't need to look natural in the way we might insist on today.

 

Obviously there are many historical images of people sitting outside taking tea etc, but if you dig into them you'll realise they were the people of leisure, not the poor sods who did all the work.

Edited February 5, 2023 by AHW

[60027Merlin]

Gilbert,

 

Just in from a few hours in the garden, clearing yet more leaves!

 

On zooming in to the photo I am sure that the lower and upper leaves are the same variety when studying their shape etc. and as such it appears to be one tree.

 

Eric

 

 

[CHAZ D]

3 hours ago, great northern said:

While looking for something else entirely, I found the licence to publish images I received from Peterborough library. My tiny mind had forgotten this, and indeed was convinced that I could not put them on here. However, I can, which is good, as I need to seek your opinion on an important subject. So here is the one and only good image I have ever found showing at least part of Station road, with this caveat." Original photographs form part of the Kitchin collection held by Peterborough Archives Services. They are not to be copied without the permission of the copyright holder".

 

My question is about the tree on the right hand side of the image, which looks a bit strange. I have asked 4D model shop to make a bespoke model of it, and they are as puzzled as I am, and indeed asked me if there are two different trees and if it is the lower one I'm asking for. I have only one other image which helps at all, and that is the aerial photo Steve @31A found for me. That shows that this is the only tree at this end of Station Road, and I can see nothing in the background that could have got sort of superimposed over the top of it.

 

So, can you arboreal experts, or anyone else for that matter, make any suggestions about this?  What sort of tree is it?  Could it really be only one tree? The trunk seems rather narrow for something of this height, if it is one complete tree. The only other large trees around are right down on Station Approach, near the hotel, and the angle from which this image was taken does not seem to me to allow for one of those to be in shot.

 

The shadows on the pavement seem to say 1 tree but the sun is very high so a second tree may not show up?

[Clive Mortimore]

3 hours ago, great northern said:

While looking for something else entirely, I found the licence to publish images I received from Peterborough library. My tiny mind had forgotten this, and indeed was convinced that I could not put them on here. However, I can, which is good, as I need to seek your opinion on an important subject. So here is the one and only good image I have ever found showing at least part of Station road, with this caveat." Original photographs form part of the Kitchin collection held by Peterborough Archives Services. They are not to be copied without the permission of the copyright holder".

My question is about the tree on the right hand side of the image, which looks a bit strange. I have asked 4D model shop to make a bespoke model of it, and they are as puzzled as I am, and indeed asked me if there are two different trees and if it is the lower one I'm asking for. I have only one other image which helps at all, and that is the aerial photo Steve @31A found for me. That shows that this is the only tree at this end of Station Road, and I can see nothing in the background that could have got sort of superimposed over the top of it.

 

So, can you arboreal experts, or anyone else for that matter, make any suggestions about this?  What sort of tree is it?  Could it really be only one tree? The trunk seems rather narrow for something of this height, if it is one complete tree. The only other large trees around are right down on Station Approach, near the hotel, and the angle from which this image was taken does not seem to me to allow for one of those to be in shot.

Do you have Steve's photo to hand?

 

I think it is two trees. To me the lower one has bigger leaves. I base this on my own recently acquired ability in cutting back branches that Mrs M wants removing form our trees. In fact what I thought was one tree in the middle of the front hedge turned out to be four once I had cut away the ivy.

[great northern]

31 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Do you have Steve's photo to hand?

 

I think it is two trees. To me the lower one has bigger leaves. I base this on my own recently acquired ability in cutting back branches that Mrs M wants removing form our trees. In fact what I thought was one tree in the middle of the front hedge turned out to be four once I had cut away the ivy.

Here it is.

Bottom right of image, and not easy to make out, but that is the only tree in the immediate area. I've left in the background right up to the hotel, as there are large trees over there, bu they are a fair distance away, so even if the angle from which the photo  was taken was directly in line with one of those, I just can't see that it would have appeared so large as to be sitting on top of it. It would have to be massively high to do that. I have plenty of trees to look at when I'm out walking, so I experimented today, and I found exactly that. The second tree has to be close in order to get anything like this effect, especially as the bough sits just right to be a continuation of the same one.

[great northern]

3 hours ago, AHW said:

So I would suggest that the reason for the tree's appearance is quite simple. The tree is close to the house. The lower half of the tree, more easily accessible from a standard gutter height ladder,  has been regularly pruned/trimmed and the top half has not.

 

The way you can tell is as follows. The lower leaves are quite dense but you can still pick out some individual branches which are short. The upper half of the tree shows lengthy branches in a more natural form - they have not been trimmed. If you consider the historical period being viewed here it makes sense. Someone who lived in the house wanted the tree kept under control, especially with a view to maintaining daylight. They were able to get at the lower branches more easily, possibly on a DIY basis. They cut them back hard, probably bi annually, and this encouraged lots of new growth, hence the dense leaf pattern. However they could either, not get easily at the top of the tree, or didn't think it through, or simply weren't bothered as the upper branches didn't obscure the windows.

 

The other thing to think about here is that whilst many ordinary working people of this period took great pride in their homes and gardening was a very popular pastime, they didn't actually spend time 'outside' in the way that we do today. They went outside for tasks such as weeding, mowing the lawn etc but went back inside for tea. I know this for a fact as my great uncle, once an 'inservice' head gardener and occasional footman at a country house in Norfolk, visited me in his 80's. He loved to be in the garden, but only when 'on task'. When I persuaded him to stop weeding for a cup of tea, he insisted on sitting inside the house for it (as did his wife). Therefore this tree needs to a) look neat and tidy and b) not obscure the windows too much but c) doesn't need to look natural in the way we might insist on today.

 

Obviously there are many historical images of people sitting outside taking tea etc, but if you dig into them you'll realise they were the people of leisure, not the poor sods who did all the work.

Excellent summary of the evidence, thank you, and I'm happy that it accounts for what can be seen. One tree, some pruning, the higher bit assessed as too difficult, and an unnecessary expense given the equipment which would be needed, and that it isn't what is causing a problem.

[great northern]

Back to the trains, and a second look at Osprey and the Queen of Scots.

I did manage another running session and some more photos, and later found a complete day's set which I'd completely forgotten about. Not much has been processed yet though, as much time was taken up by tree talk and investigation. Another lovely sunny day is forecast for tomorrow, so even more might be taken,

[great northern]

A side on view of Abbotsford to start the day. A detailed look at the stock will follow shortly.