Peterborough North

[Mallard60022]

Dear RMWeb members. This is Mallard's SWMBO typing here. I am sorry but he has been taken into works for a complete overhaul and won't be posting on here until the treatment work has been completed and that could be some time.

P @ 36E (What does this mean and yes my name begins with a P as well......)

 

Who let her get on here? She's been on the Gin again. I'm OK really as you can tell from my latest posts.

Oh yes, anyone seen the Blog on Baccy A4s weighting ? (Silver Sideline's - streaks and highlights)

P @ 36E

Edited October 11, 2012 by Mallard60022

[great northern]

Gilbert,

 

Were those A3s really so dirty and woebegone in '58 ? Glad I saw them when they were much easier to identify !!!!

 

Yes, I know that Gateshead was famous for dirty engines, but this !!!!!!

 

Stuart

 

Tom Wright weathered Gladiateur some years ago, Stuart, working from a colour photo taken in '58. Believe it or not, he could not bring himself to make her as filthy as the photo showed. Can't post it here, no permission. I'm afraid that during the mid '50's this was all too typical of the condition of Gateshead's fleet. Why I don't know, unless it was a lack of cleaners. G.Freeman Allen reported in 1955 in Trains Illustrated that New England had just two cleaners and 183 engines to maintain, which certainly gives some excuse for the state of their locos, Gateshead did improve when they got more through workings to London later on, so they could do it if they tried. And as has been mentioned earlier, Heaton did not seem to have the same difficulties in keeping things clean. As to Grantham, until some time in 1959 their Pacifics rivalled Top Shed, but then all cleaning seemed to stop abruptly, and within weeks their A3's were as filthy as anything Gateshead could produce. They stayed llike that till '61, when just as suddenly they became presentable again. Could well just be a question of the priorities of the shedmaster at the time I suppose.

[great northern]

Gilbert, could you point another total amateur in the direction of your Paint tutorial?

Or can anyone point me at one for photoshop?

 

HI Jeff. I found something on You Tube through Google entitled " The very basics of Paint.Net". On the right hand side of the page are a number of tutorials, some of which are baffling, to me anyway, but one entitled " Understanding layers in Paint. Net" by Isurewould did the trick for me.

[Grafarman]

Just a quick Congrats on over 200k views and 2700+ posts; still the best read on the site IMO mixing top notch modelling, fascinating first-hand tales and well-researched info on the prototypes, inspirational pictures and banter of the best kind...

 

Keep it up!

 

David

[great northern]

Thanks David for those kind and generous comments. I'm still overwhelmed by the interest which this thread attracts - it has clearly struck a chord with quite a number of people for whatever reason. Many thanks to all who contribute, and for the way in which those contributions are made. There is as David says a great atmosphere about the place, and that is down to the people who visit and comment. Now, what do I do to commemorate 200,000 replies?

[S.A.C Martin]

The thing about Peterborough North which fascinates me, is that because it's based wholly on a real location, you can visit said location and see portions of the model which are still there, and be able to say "so that's where X and Y would go", and see exactly how you carefully planned the layout's structure within the confines of space you have.

 

It's part time machine, part engineering, all wonderfully evocative of an era I never saw but feel I know better for having seen your models at work.

[Mallard60022]

Now, what do I do to commemorate 200,000 replies?

Sorry G, it just has to be a Friday's worth of freight workings, parcels and specials please. The top link jobs could wait until tomorrow

Enjoy your day and looking forward to a meet up sometime.

P @ 36E

[Oldddudders]

Just a thought. The increasing difficulties in keeping locos clean could be explained by the times in which they occurred. Since shortly after the Ark landed, the progression for footplate staff had commenced with teenage lads joining as engine cleaners, then progressing to firemen and ultimately - in many cases after decades - to driver. The years in question here were when Harold Macmillan was telling the country "You've never had it so good", suggesting to me that jobs were not in short supply (as they are today!). There was a thread on RMweb recently about the arduous working conditions still prevalent for many manual jobs in the early '50s, and I do wonder if this was the beginning of the turnaround. Thus, and with pilot scheme diesels on the horizon, changes were taking place which simply meant the supply of lads prepared to work dreadful shifts on hard & dirty tasks no longer kept up with promotion onto the footplate.

 

I have witnessed similar effects in resignalling schemes, whereby the last few months of the old boxes could be a headache for staffing, as people moved forward for training elsewhere. As I say, just a thought.

[Mallard60022]

Of course Ian. This is the sensible and logical view on the lack of interest in doing a dirty and difficult job around the end of the 50s and early 60s resulting in a lack of 'junior' shed staff. Also any new cleaners that did manage to survive were rapidly put to firemen duties due to lack of staff and then were driving far earlier than at any time before. I think Coachman could vouch for this having actually done the job? Top Shed managed because there were many immigrant workers locally who were willing to do the junior jobs at that time.

A super recent article in Railway Magazine October 12, describes how a 24 yr old, Peter Smith, was gifted the last up Pines Express by the senior driver Donald Beale 50 years ago on September 8th. Such was the way at that time.

P @ 36E

Edited October 12, 2012 by Mallard60022

[Coldgunner]

The thing about Peterborough North which fascinates me, is that because it's based wholly on a real location, you can visit said location and see portions of the model which are still there, and be able to say "so that's where X and Y would go", and see exactly how you carefully planned the layout's structure within the confines of space you have.

 

It's part time machine, part engineering, all wonderfully evocative of an era I never saw but feel I know better for having seen your models at work.

 

Exactly, living in Peterborough am only familiar with the station as it is now, although if you look for it you can still find the old stuff. I never had a good idea of what the original looked like till I saw this thread.

[great northern]

What shall I do today? I'll take some more photos. I did, and that took about half an hour. Then I decided to add a sky to them. Five hours later ...... you may gather I am not best pleased. The only highlight came when Paint.Net invited me to "flatten" the images. Just in time I managed to prevent myself from taking it literally. So, having spent all that time, I'm going to share them, despite all their glaring deficiencies. You may have some questions.

 

" Why is there a halo round some of the buildings?- Answer- Dunno.

"Why does that signal look so strange? - Answer - Dunno.

 

Please also apply that answer to any other queries you might come up with.

 

Let us start with an anomaly.

 

A Jubilee. allocated to Leicester Midland 18 months earlier than official records state , backs down onto the Ely- Birmingham through train, the stock of which is out of sight in Platform 6. Here is the first of today's errors. I lightened the sky as suggested by Coachmann and Andy Y. Not enough though....And i has just occurred to me that I could have cropped that bit at the top with the funny squiggle on it.

 

 

Under a more subdued sky, The Up Flying Scotsman rolls slowly through behind KX A1 Curlew. As this is move 200 on my sequence, it shall be designated as the celebration of the magic 200,000. This shows the only good idea I had today, which was to make the signal forest so small that I didn't have to photoshop it. There follows the not so good idea, which was to take series of photos at the South end, and to show some of my favourite viewing points with a proper background. Rather naively, I thought there would be few problems shopping them, as there is only one signal to deal with. Oh dear, how wrong can you be? I'm afraid there will be less shots per post if I am going to fiddle about with them like this.

 

Well, there you have it, Should you feel so inclined, and need a good laugh, zoom in on them and see all the chimneys with bite sized chunks missing, and the many other errors I managed to perpetrate. I may improve with practice.... but on the other hand, I may not.

[Coldgunner]

Somewhat way offtopic, but your background reminds me of those boards you had to sit in front of when getting your picture taken at school. You did very well though, most of the edges are quite seamless.

[coachmann]

One problem is that your skies have no perspective and therefore look simply like backdrops. I presume you have been out to photograph a few skies. Using te wide angle setting, shoot with the distant horizon just out of the frame or crop it afterwards. This way you get a range of clouds getting smaller as they receed into the distance. Also, shoot skies to the left then shot to the right so that you have couds with shadows on different sides. Make a point of looking for interesting skies.................... Take your camera wth you when golfing.................Guaranteed to put someone off their stroke!

 

That apart I am always impressed with the 'clean-ness' of your images.

Edited October 14, 2012 by coachmann

[great northern]

One problem is that your skies have no perspective and therefore look simply like backdrops. I presume you have been out to photograph a few skies. Using te wide angle setting, shoot with the distant horizon just out of the frame or crop it afterwards. This way you get a range of clouds getting smaller as they receed into the distance. Also, shoot skies to the left then shot to the right so that you have couds with shadows on different sides. Make a point of looking for interesting skies.................... Take your camera wth you when golfing.................Guaranteed to put someone off their stroke!

 

That apart I am always impressed with the 'clean-ness' of your images.

 

Thanks again Larry. I have to confess that so far I have ventured no more than fifty yards from home to photograph skies, and then all I have done is point the camera upwards. I shall take your advice, be less idle, and go out and find a more suitable vantage point, and see what can be achieved. Then I must work out whether some of the deficiencies in the photoshopping are caused by my not fully understanding the thing, or whether the programme itself causes them. In fairness it is a free download, so can't surely be expected to reach the same standards as those costing £400+.

 

I must also remember not to let all of this sidetrack me completely from modelling. Greenfield has been a real inspiration lately, showing what can be done, and how quickly, so it is time I got on with all the things I've had on the "to do" list for months.

[coachmann]

Thank you for those kind words Gilbert. Here's a sky shot from my back garden, how lazy is that! It is merely to show you what I meant about including the horizon so that the sky has some perspective. The shot is straight out of the camera (resized for RMweb), and as the exposure is for the sky, it needs lightening considerably before use.

[Andy Y]

" Why is there a halo round some of the buildings?- Answer- Dunno.

"Why does that signal look so strange? - Answer - Dunno.

 

In a nutshell you're suffering from chromatic aberration Gilbert. Normally it's not a significant issue in most shots but as soon as you delete the background and overlay the foreground over a sky it can become more of an issue. When you're waving your smart wand around it has a degree of tolerance and stops the mask at a point somewhere between the two colours at the border of whatever you're working around. I don't know if paint.net allows you to increase the tolerance (which would improve the halo around the buildings) but the tolerance is possibly too high at its standard setting if it's taking chunks out of your chimneys.

 

That's the problem, so how to get around it?

 

I work very much pixel by pixel with a manual eraser or polygonal lasso around such objects but you have to question your sanity if you do go that far; especially those of of you who choose to model lattice-post signals!

 

 

So; if you don't wish to resort to those levels? Increase the brightness of your sky backdrop until the difference between the sky and that halo is minimal.

[Dicky W]

you're suffering from chromatic aberration Gilbert.

 

Are there tablets for this?

[Andy Y]

A soothing cream gently applied as for most PITAs.

[great northern]

A soothing cream gently applied as for most PITAs.

 

Oh, Rennies won't do the job then?

[great northern]

In a nutshell you're suffering from chromatic aberration Gilbert. Normally it's not a significant issue in most shots but as soon as you delete the background and overlay the foreground over a sky it can become more of an issue. When you're waving your smart wand around it has a degree of tolerance and stops the mask at a point somewhere between the two colours at the border of whatever you're working around. I don't know if paint.net allows you to increase the tolerance (which would improve the halo around the buildings) but the tolerance is possibly too high at its standard setting if it's taking chunks out of your chimneys.

 

That's the problem, so how to get around it?

 

I work very much pixel by pixel with a manual eraser or polygonal lasso around such objects but you have to question your sanity if you do go that far; especially those of of you who choose to model lattice-post signals!

 

 

So; if you don't wish to resort to those levels? Increase the brightness of your sky backdrop until the difference between the sky and that halo is minimal.

 

Thanks Andy. This all gets very complicated. I have found that I need to reduce the tolerance considerably to avoid the wand tool removing things that don't need to be removed. I've tried the lassoo but my hand isn't steady enough, and the same applies with the eraser when I try to use it on really delicate bits. And I have already found out what a joy it is to deal with lattice post signals..... One daft question. If I brighten the sky, doesn't that go against the advice to lighten it which all you experts have been giving me? Or is it the lesser of two evils, as so often applies?

[Andy Y]

Sorry Gilbert, it wasn't very clear; lightening (or increasing brightness) means the same in this context. Basically it's about toning the sky down to be sympathetic to the model foreground.

[gresley]

Gilbert,

 

There's a simple answer to this. All you have to do is to visit Coachman in N Wales. They have fantastic skies up there, even when it's raining !!!

 

I know 'cos I had an aunt who lived in Prestatyn.

 

Stuart

[great northern]

If at first you don't succeed........... Another go, having remembered that just over a mile from home I can stand and look right across the Trent Valley. So another sky or two, and two more attempts below.

 

Still problems on the right hand side of both images, which I think can only be cured by having some sort of backscene. I didn't want to do that for various reasons, so much more thought is called for, but not until after tea.

[Guest Tom F]

That 2nd photo underneath Crescent Bridge works really well Gilbert!

 

Well Done!

[Timara]

That 2nd photo underneath Crescent Bridge works really well Gilbert!

 

Well Done!

 

Seconded! I think what will probably solve a lot of the "issues" you say about that last one Gilbert is your finishing the street scene off. Same goes for the yard bits at the southern end of platform 2.

 

Keep 'em coming!