Peterborough North

[great northern]

Did 73050 ever get to Peterborough in its service career?

Highly unlikely I would think, as it was shedded at Bath Green Park, so would have spent most of its time on the S&D.

[Mallard60022]

On Saturday 26th April 1958 Bristol Rovers played at Grimsby; they lost 3 - 2. However 73050 could have taken the supporters through Peterborough for that one.

Sincerely, P.

[great northern]

Lead me not into temptation.   Mind you David Jenkinson set a precedent with his "funny trains", didn't he? And doesn't that loco look lovely - even better towing some vintage M&GN stock......

Photo reproduced courtesy of peterboroughimages.co.uk

[Fenman]

Lead me not into temptation.   Mind you David Jenkinson set a precedent with his "funny trains", didn't he? And doesn't that loco look lovely - even better towing some vintage M&GN stock......

1935-steam.jpg

Photo reproduced courtesy of peterboroughimages.co.uk

 

Some of the early M&GN 4-4-0s strike me as being among the loveliest-looking locos I've seen.

 

I think one class was based on a Midland Railway design by Johnson - was it an 1808 Class?

 

Paul

[great northern]

As my back has hinted fairly strongly that I may be overdoing the golf practice, I've had time to try to reproduce one of the images that I have been allowed to use from peterboroughimages.co.uk.

No prizes for guessing which is the real thing.   I was quite pleased with the original image that I got, but converting it to black and white has spoiled it I'm afraid. It shows yet again that the unavoidable compression means that some things, well, most really are considerably out of place, but the right foregound area isn't too far out, apart from the telegraph pole. I was surprised how far out of place the water tank is though.

 

I've tried very hard to get the same sort of lighting and contrast, but failed miserably. If someone who knows what they are doing could make it look better, I'd be very pleased. In fairness to myself, the light was unbelievably strong, and coming in at a low angle, and of course I couldn't get the camera down to the level where the original photographer would have been. I suspect I don't have the right sort of zoom either.  Bit disappointing really, as I had hoped to get fairly close to this one.

[LNER4479]

It's nice GN but I suspect you need to position the camera a little more to the right (as we look at it) - the photographer of 92144 is closer to the platform edge than you are. That would bring the nice home & distant bracket signal out from behind the platform 'gallows' signal. For me that's the biggest visual difference between the photos. Shouldn't be too difficult to reposition the camera thus - maybe a small block of wood on the track to balance the right hand end of the camera?

[Alister_G]

It's nice GN but I suspect you need to position the camera a little more to the right (as we look at it) - the photographer of 92144 is closer to the platform edge than you are. That would bring the nice home & distant bracket signal out from behind the platform 'gallows' signal. For me that's the biggest visual difference between the photos. Shouldn't be too difficult to reposition the camera thus - maybe a small block of wood on the track to balance the right hand end of the camera?

 

Agree with LNER4479, but also, is it possible to move the camera further away or zoom out a bit?

 

I think you would get better light to play with, and less feel of compression, if the lens was further away from the subject.

 

You could then crop it to match the original in your software.

 

Al.

[Mallard60022]

I believe there is a 'stick thing' that one can get for the camera so one can poke it into unusual places. Then one uses a cable shutter thing to take the pic. Maybe I'm imagining 'things'?

OK, question. Why did some railway workers call 9Fs 'Spaceships'?

By the way, I just love 9Fs. From the very first time I encountered one from ground level at Laira circa 1960 I have thought they are amazing.

P

Edited November 13, 2014 by Mallard60022

[Fat Controller]

Hi, new to this site so excuse me for butting in, the Royal Mail Van is a 1960s Morris LC5 while Langley make an earlier LC3 with separate headlights but basically the same body. I believe the mudguards were made of rubber.

Quite a few GPO vehicles used to have 'rubber' wings or mudguards; the Morris 1000, for example.

[bigwordsmith]

Gilbert to me there are just two things that make the model pic stand out from the real thing which are the lamps - I know how fiddly the damn things are, but the model ones look bout twice the size of the real ones. The other thing is your platform ramp able - I've made the same mistake and run them at 45 degrees, but this looks moralise 30

 

Otherwise you really would have to look twice if you hadn't put them together.

 

I agree with Phil about the power of 9Fs - I saw the Bluebell's being transported to the railway ex-Barry back in about 1970 something when I was driving home from work in London to East Grinstead. I could see the power of the thing dimly dining through the rust and holes and missing bits, and it made me think that any bunch of enthusiasts who were mad enough to try and return that to its former glory were a group I'd like tone associated, so I joined up, and have been an inactive member from that day to this!

 

I even got to ride behind it on its return to steam train a decade or so later, but sadly she hasn't drawn breath for over 12 years even though she would be ideal for the new railway.

[The Blue Streak]

I believe there is a 'stick thing' that one can get for the camera so one can poke it into unusual places. Then one uses a cable shutter thing to take the pic. Maybe I'm imagining 'things'?

 

"Stick Thing"

Phil, you are a bl**dy legend, you'd fit right in, down here in Oz, Just our sort of Bloke.

 

 But I'd like to know the reason behind the Spaceship nickname as well.

Edited November 13, 2014 by The Blue Streak

[Welly]

I think the "Spaceship" nickname came from the massive daylight between the frames and the boiler of the 9F.

[Mallard60022]

"Stick Thing"

Phil, you are a bl**dy legend, you'd fit right in, down here in Oz, Just our sort of Bloke.

 

 But I'd like to know the reason behind the Spaceship nickname as well.

Thanks mate....I can whinge for G.B. me...........

 

The Blubell 9F. When I worked at Kingscote, probably during a Giants of Steam event around the late 90s, the 9F arrived with a Terrier up front. Honestly, it looked like an insect had got trapped between the front  buffers of the 9F. It was hilarious.

P

Edited November 13, 2014 by Mallard60022

[great northern]

Some of the early M&GN 4-4-0s strike me as being among the loveliest-looking locos I've seen.

 

I think one class was based on a Midland Railway design by Johnson - was it an 1808 Class?

 

Paul

This class was a Johnson design Paul, built by Beyer Peacock. I haven't yet been able to confirm which of Johnson's own Midland designs it was based on, but it does look, as one might expect, very close to what he was doing for the MR, and those IMO were some of the most beautiful locos ever built.

[davidw]

As my back has hinted fairly strongly that I may be overdoing the golf practice, I've had time to try to reproduce one of the images that I have been allowed to use from peterboroughimages.co.uk.

92144-pb-100860.jpg

9F third try.jpg

No prizes for guessing which is the real thing.   I was quite pleased with the original image that I got, but converting it to black and white has spoiled it I'm afraid. It shows yet again that the unavoidable compression means that some things, well, most really are considerably out of place, but the right foregound area isn't too far out, apart from the telegraph pole. I was surprised how far out of place the water tank is though.

 

I've tried very hard to get the same sort of lighting and contrast, but failed miserably. If someone who knows what they are doing could make it look better, I'd be very pleased. In fairness to myself, the light was unbelievably strong, and coming in at a low angle, and of course I couldn't get the camera down to the level where the original photographer would have been. I suspect I don't have the right sort of zoom either.  Bit disappointing really, as I had hoped to get fairly close to this one.

 

Only just catching up on the thread Gilbert. I wouldn't be disappointing with that. To me it's quite an achievement... 

[westerner]

I've had a go Gilbert.

 

[great northern]

I've had a go Gilbert.

 

PN2.jpg

Thanks Alan, that is much better. I was just on my way up to follow up on the advice given by "Robert" and Al, so I'll report back later.

[great northern]

First, a sad story. Yesterday, I lost my golf ball. It had served me faithfully for nine rounds, fourteen holes, and one very crooked drive, which means I had hit it about 830 times, and yet it stayed faithful to me, until it hit a tree, very hard, at which point it took . Actually, it isn't lost - I know exactly where it is, it is hiding under a leaf........but which one. I suppose I'll have to get another.

 

OK, I've had another go at that prototype shot, having assimilated the very good advice from LNER 4479 and "Bakewell" Al. And the result...?

The original seems to have disappeared from my PC, so I'll have to ask you to scroll up to compare. It is definitely better, many thanks chaps, but strange things seem to happen when I convert to grayscale, such as the weathering which I was careful to put on the lamps disappearing completely. I don't seem to be very good at getting the brightness and contrast to match the original either, and I still struggle with the zoom feature. It does show that a lot of things are roughly where they should be though, so all in all a decent result.

[Alister_G]

That's brilliant GN, really does show how faithfully modelled the layout is. Here's the original to compare:

 

 

Oh, you forgot the bloke in the raincoat :nono:

 

Al.

[LNER4479]

That's better! Still slightly too high a viewpoint (nothing you can do about that) but there's much more interest in the background now - as there is in the original and hence more convincing.

 

As a final touch, I'd just crop out the bottom 10-15% of the pic as it's not really there in the original and would balance the final image a little better.  I'll let others comment about with the balance / contrast elements (as I don't have much idea about that either).

[Theakerr]

Interesting photo AGR_MR in that it looks like that 1st van may have a tarp on it (or not).  anyway it reminded me of how many vans that ran through Waltham did have tarps on them and is something I will try to model.  As a younger person (PC for child) I never asked why.  I suppose now it was because they had a leak but then why weren't they taken out of service.  As usual Gilbert your pictures are always well worth looking at, even if you sometimes question them

Edited November 15, 2014 by Theakerr

[Clive Mortimore]

Lead me not into temptation.   Mind you David Jenkinson set a precedent with his "funny trains", didn't he? And doesn't that loco look lovely - even better towing some vintage M&GN stock......

1935-steam.jpg

Photo reproduced courtesy of peterboroughimages.co.uk

 

 

This class was a Johnson design Paul, built by Beyer Peacock. I haven't yet been able to confirm which of Johnson's own Midland designs it was based on, but it does look, as one might expect, very close to what he was doing for the MR, and those IMO were some of the most beautiful locos ever built.

Ok diesel modeller to the rescue.

 

The locomotive in the photo, M&GNR No.13 was a C class locomotive built by Beyer Peacock. The nearest Derby design is the 1808 class with 6 ft 6in driving wheels and a B boiler. After the M&GNR locos were built the MR was short of locos and had no spare capacity at Derby so ordered from Beyer Peacock a series of locos which were known as "like the M&GN C Class engines", they were offically called the 2581 class.

[Alister_G]

Interesting photo AGR_MR in that it looks like that 1st van may have a tarp on it (or not).  anyway it reminded me of how many vans that ran through Waltham did have tarps on them and is something I will try to model.  As a younger person (PC for child) I never asked why.  I suppose now it was because they had a leak but then why weren't they taken out of service.  As usual Gilbert your pictures are always looking at, even if you sometimes question them

 

Thanks, it's not my photo though, I just copied it from further up the thread, Gilbert posted it originally.

[coachmann]

Dun a bit of tweeking Gilbert.......Well you did arsk....

Moved the carriages back a bit. 

Brought the pole and ground signal forward. 

Deleted the water tank.

Filed down the ground between the ballast.

Lightened the greys as well as adding contrast....

Cropped the picture.....

 

Edited November 15, 2014 by coachmann

[Mallard60022]

Are the lamps from the  source below any good for you? I'm really twitching about those superb but obese ones. yes, I know wev'e been there before and I'm not trying to be picky. I just think they look too damn big.

http://www.3smr.co.uk/locoscomponents.html     item L201

 

Sick duck from 36E

Edited November 16, 2014 by Mallard60022