Wright writes.....

[Andy Y]

Thanks for those Gilbert; it's certainly interesting and confusing in equal measure.

 

I did look back to that more side-on image and there's definitely something not quite perfect given away by the shadow beneath the guttering at the end of the brake half of the artic (and also on the next carriage after the artic pair) and also the gutter height above the window on the artic brake.

 

I honestly hope such in-depth scrutiny doesn't take the pair out of favour whatever the cause of the anomaly as they're still of great interest.

[Mallard60022]

Anyone that has seen these coach sets 'in real life' on PN will state that there isn't a lot wrong at all. In fact, to my ducky eyes, everything on the layout looks absolutely superb. PN is a place we can go and relive the past. If a few coaches are a bit 'tired', wonky' or maybe lacking in a few super detail bits I'm afraid I don't care.

In this particular discussion I believe the camera lies.

I know nothing of photography so I'll shut up now and go away, but just before I go is there any mileage in taking a shot from further away and then enlarging it a bit rather than using zoom in the actual shot? On my simple and now old DLR, any use of the zoom seems to mess up the pics.

Quack

[Tony Wright]

Firstly, my thanks to Gilbert Barnatt (Great Northern) for his kind words of support, and there's no danger of his hijacking 'my' thread. Far from it, for I welcome his contribution. The debate over model/camera, what causes what, etc, will probably have no resolution. All I would say is to reiterate that most times I point a camera at a model I've made and smugly sit at the computer to admire my 'excellence', the results (not of the picture quality) are mostly disappointing, as the lens cruelly highlights my wiggly building and general carelessness. It's quicker than it used to be, though the sight of the image gradually appearing in the Stygian gloom of my darkroom brought just the same results, only slower.

 

Mallard60022 gives me some hope because he reckons it's the camera's fault when things look out of kilter - thanks Phil. He also makes an excellent point that the coaches in question, when seen in reality, fit in perfectly with the general appearance of Peterborough North (though I still don't believe they're in the same league as Peter Leyland's architectural modelling - that could, however, be construed as comparing apples with pears, though the latter is truly outstanding work). I also think he raises another important issue - the one where it's all too easy to be critical. One side-effect of the web is the immediacy of the communication, and there's a danger (as I know too well) of posting without thinking. My motivation of being critical of the models in question was in defence of Andy's camera work. But one must be careful not to be perceived as a zealot, a sort of railway modelling member of the Taliban. Anyway, Phil is due to visit Little Bytham soon, and he can point his finger at any of my wiggly wobbly modelling. No doubt he'll report accordingly.

 

Anyway, perhaps a few pictures of interest....

 

 

Golden Age Models Coronation set. Just to give hope to all of us who struggle to get our trains straight and true, even the best don't always get it right. I've just been photographing Golden Age Models' LNER streamliners and, in posing for a close-up I noticed that two of the articulated cars didn't line up. I tried pushing one one way, the other the other, but this is the best they would line up. Just parking them after being loco-hauled made the situation worse. 

 

 

Hornby 8F further weathering. With time on my hands, I've been doing a bit more fiddling. Here's Hornby's current (or most recent) weathered 8F, renumbered and with more weathering added. 8Fs on the M&GNR must have been very rare, but it's really not my property. I did it for Ian Wilson as part of our horse trading, and just posed it on the higher level of Little Bytham. It just needs its replacement pony wheels to arrive.

 

 

 

Modified Hornby O1 and 02. Further horse trading, for this is also Ian's property. Pleased (smugly) with my own Hornby O1 fiddlings seen recently, I decided to take this one a step further. A glance at the prototype picture here will show that 63786 was most unusual (unique?) in having no continuous rising arc handrail above the smokebox door - just a horizontal crossrail substituted on the door itself. It's also one of the very few O1s to carry the bulbous smokebox door as supplied by Hornby, so why not? After all, only the last digit of its number needed changing. It's seen alongside my earlier O1, which was a pre-weathered example, to which I added more. This one was in pristine condition out of its box, so needed more weathering at source. Whereas the earlier one had included some semi-matt streaks, this one was given an all-matt dry-brush treatment by way of a difference. Both front numberplates came from Ian Wilson's own Pacific Models' range.

 

 

 

Modified Hornby O1 03. More of a photographic conundrum here. Many's the time I've been on a layout photo shoot, and returned home to process the pictures to find umpteen artefacts in the images festooned with spiders' webs. Hours would then be spent in removing them in Photoshop. Occasionally, my photo-flood lighting would show up the arachnids' devious traps, and I'd remove them with a soft brush before taking the picture. However, my method of taking pictures in my shed is to use only the ambient lighting - white light strip-lighting and any reflected daylight through the windows, and then 'filling-in' with a powerful electronic flash (Metz CT60) bounced off the ceiling and walls during the exposure. What it means is that you don't see the horrors to the left of this picture until it's on the computer. Moral, always brush off your subject matter first.

 

 

Modified Hornby O1 04. Talk about model distortion! Just look at the front and central sections of this loco's footplate. I'd noticed it was slightly distorted during the weathering, but nothing had prepared me for this. And (quack, quack!), it's not the camera's fault. The Nikon D3 doesn't play wiggly tricks, this is definitely the model. How disappointing, but, in agreement with Phil, on the layout, running by, it isn't really that much of an issue. It's been the victim of a heavy shunt at March! It, too, awaits its replacement pony wheels. 

 

 

63786 March 31B. The prototype in question.

 

 

 

60500 on Cliffe-Uddingston cement block train 01 and 02. I've just spent a most enjoyable couple of days with two mates from Wolverhampton, and Ian Wilson, planning out a running sequence for Little Bytham based on BR's own timetables. Here's one of the trains to be run in that sequence - the fast block train between Kent and Midlothian. Peter Townend tells us in one of his books that an A2/3 was the only class of locomotive which could keep the tight sectional timings between Tallington and Stoke up the bank with this heavy train. 9Fs couldn't do it. So, praise for Mr. Thompson after all. Our esteemed administrator joined us for the afternoon, taking a picture of a weathered 'Deltic' on the trainset. The railway, I'm pleased to say, ran impeccably, as I hope Mr York will confirm - a portent for the future?

I made the loco and Rob Kinsey made the train.

 

More on rolling stock matters to come....

[micklner]

Have you tried adjusting the top valve gear bracket on the O1 ? it maybe forcing the footplate high . The one I have luckily is dead straight ,but this is not the first one I have seen with a Banana footplate, sadly this is the worst i have seen . perhaps Mr Kohler may assist with a new body if needed ?

Good to see some praise for Mr Thompsons Pacifics hopefully we will see one rtr before long. Peter Townsend gives them praise in his very excellent book.

[MJI]

60500 on Cliffe-Uddingston cement block train 01 and 02. I've just spent a most enjoyable couple of days with two mates from Wolverhampton, and Ian Wilson, planning out a running sequence for Little Bytham based on BR's own timetables. Here's one of the trains to be run in that sequence - the fast block train between Kent and Midlothian. Peter Townend tells us in one of his books that an A2/3 was the only class of locomotive which could keep the tight sectional timings between Tallington and Stoke up the bank with this heavy train. 9Fs couldn't do it.

 

 

9Fs unable to do it.

 

That sounds unusual.

 

After reading the S&D Footplate books you would think they could do anything.

[Mallard60022]

That O1 weathering is just .....I'm almost lost for words (but not quite)...... wright. Dull as can be and how it was unless an oily rag/ shower/ some sort of biblical miracle had occurred. Poor old 63786. It needs a 'wag' to chalk 'wonky donkey' on the tender side.

Now, the A2/3. Does she/it/he not look just amazing on that cement (or would it be cements?)  The 'going away' shot is also brilliant.

As for cameras. They are all rubbish 'cause in any photo' of me I look ugly, overweight, bald and old (even ones take many years ago). Confirms the fact that cameras always lie - fact!

I am looking forward to going south to LB and if I notice any wildlife or wonky bits I shall not make note. The layout will be studied carefully as well

P

Edited August 9, 2013 by Mallard60022

[Andy Y]

Our administrator joined us for the afternoon, taking a picture of a weathered 'Deltic' on the trainset. The railway, I'm pleased to say, ran impeccably, as I hope Mr York will confirm - a portent for the future?

It was a pleasure to have the control in hand for a brief spell yesterday even though I was admonished for driving too cautiously on one occasion. A subsequent spell of hard driving from Driver Wright showed that the regulator shouldn't be feared! The Coronation set is undoubtedly a model of great beauty with an exceptional standard of finish but the running qualities of the pre-production model were certainly not without difficulty, more on that matter in due course.

[Dunsignalling]

The Camera changes the shape on these pictures too.

Your close up makes the brake section look much too short and the roof rainstrips on the same coach have strange wobbly shape too compared with other twin and the following coach. Not as extreme as the one on Peterbourgh but still there.

As I said on my last post on this thread the side on photo Gilbert posted shows no extremes as on the angled photo. The only obvious thing is the slight difference in coach side angles due to the artic fitting as mentioned by yourself above. I had s imilar problem on my silver Jubille set which took was cured by packing using MJT etches between the pairs.

 

Great thread

I would agree, it's primarily foreshortening caused by the amount of magnification involved (the classic telephoto effect).

 

Assuming that the picture was taken using a zoom lens (as most are, these days) it may well have been exacerbated by a distortion factor that occurs only in part of the zoom range (and possibly not over the entire field of view).

 

All zoom lenses have these aberrations to a greater or lesser extent. Quality/price has an influence but a 20x zoom of a given standard will have more and worse ones than (say) a comparable 5x type. Such effects are generally more pronounced if the lens is used at very large or very small apertures. They will vary (or even disappear) at other zoom settings which could explain its relative absence from the other shot.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

 

 

9Fs unable to do it.

 

That sounds unusual.

 

After reading the S&D Footplate books you would think they could do anything.

Nothing unusual about it. Just a combination of tonnage and speed which fell outside their ideal range.

 

Bear in mind that, on the S&D, 9Fs were passenger engines and only had to cope with about 300 tons, albeit over a difficult road. Their ability to produce better performance than S&D crews were accustomed to getting out of two engines was what earned their reputation. 

 

300 tons only equates to nine or ten loaded Presflos, twenty-odd would be no bother for either a 9F or an A2/3, but if the timings were quick, the faster Class 8 loco would cope better.  

 

The 'Ninety with a Nine' legend may occasionally have had a basis in fact but it's highly unlikely any example would ever do it twice! Even Mallard broke doing her 126 downhill and on much bigger wheels. It's a pity neither class were ever tried out with roller bearings.

 

John

[Tony Wright]

Some more items showing a further range of coaching stock, from a wide variety of sources.

 

 

Weathered RTR vans. Time was, and not so long ago, that the only way to get decent passenger stock of the variety needed to populate a main line scene (or even a branch line scene) was to kit or scratch-build in numbers. Now we have a marvellous range of splendid vehicles to use at our leisure. Here we have a Hornby four-wheeled ex-SR van, then a Bachmann BR GUV, followed by a Hornby Gresley BG. The last mentioned still has issues with the body shape but the horizontal beading is now in the right place. Rob Davey weathered the SR van and the GUV and I just dry-brushed the roof and underframes of the BG.

 

 

GE Section TSO. Years ago, when etched brass was in its infancy, a firm called ROCOM (I think) produced kits for the GE-section 'shorty' Gresley coaches, a TSO and a BTK. Here's the TSO made up by me. I've lettered it with the GE prefix, and I don't know if that's right. Certainly, several images exist of latter-day GE-section stock (including BR Mk.1s) prefixed 'GE' (then suffixed 'E'), but is this right for carmine/cream condition? The kits were really quite pricey but made up well, if a little lacking in surface detail - no provision for hinges or door bumps for instance. It's something a little bit different, and despite my assertion above that we now enjoy a great range of RTR carriages, kit or scratch-building is the only way to achieve anything like this.

 

 

PC Gresley BG. Even more years ago, PC used to do kits for LNER stock. Mostly in pre-printed teak condition, the firm also offered the same carriages in BR carmine and cream. The effect was far less successful, largely because the beading relief was almost non-existent. It didn't matter so much with the teak stock because the lining brought it out. However, at the time, the only alternative was BSL kits (which had no relief at all) or scratch-building. I built this example 40 years ago, little realising that probably only one Gresley BG was finished in this manner, and not this one. 

 

 

PC Gresley BG. I always found the making of PC kits a bit of a struggle, especially forming the ends correctly. Though BSL kits had no beading and the stamped-out sides could be distorted, the basic construction was very simple and the cast-metal ends substantially correct. So, I married a BSL BCK with the appropriate PC sides. At a distance (the further the better) on a layout it's just about acceptable, though printed-on door handles and grab rails are pretty naff. But, it's part of my model-making history and I keep it more out of curiosity. And, I made it (perhaps that's a foolish admission).

 

 

Mopok Hawksworth BG. More dinosaur technology - a coach kit made of cast metal, aluminium (I think), plastic and wood. What a combination. The pre-printed sides are much too dark in my opinion, though they saved the hassle of painting. The thing weighs a 'ton' but is absolutely rock steady on the road. I really don't know who made this, since it came my way many years ago by way of some horse traiding. Or, who weathered it either, but it's quite effective.

 

 

Hornby Hawksworth BG. Look at today's alternative. Way, way superior from Hornby. Rob Davey did the weathering and it just brings this beautiful vehicle to life. However, shouldn't it have the central bodyside lettering as on the Mopok vehicle?

 

 

Queen of Scots. I made this rake many years ago from Hornby/Comet/Trice components, writing it up in BRM. Ian Rathbone produced the perfect painting. The end board was from The Famous Named train Co., but it's not quite right in terms of design and lettering. But, it looks fine as the set bowls by. This Parlour Brake Third runs on 10' Pullman bogies, just as something different, though accurate. These came as spares from a Mailcoach articulated kit. As mentioned already, though Hornby's current Pullmans are beautiful models they're not really right for the later day ECML in numbers. This started off as one of the original cars, now available in the Railroad range.

 

 

Tourist twins. Built by me from the Mailcoach product, these were written up in the Railway Modeller in the last century. They're a bit of a fiddle for the sides are just clear plastic. I hand-painted these, the alternative being to spends hours/days/weeks masking off the windows for spray painting. These cars were to be seen all over the place in the '50s/early-'60s as part of all sorts of trains. After the war they never ran in fixed rakes and a depiction of the type is essential for an ER layout of the period.

 

 

TSOs. More Southern Pride-originated sides, completed using Comet and Trice components. These were made and finished by Tony Geary, representing a post-war Thompson carriage and one of the pre-war Gresley steel-bodied cars. Highly unlikely to be available as RTR products, kit or scratch-building is the only way to get types such as these.

 

 

Non-gangwayed steel artics. Even more Southern-Pride originated sides. These outer-suburban steel-sided Gresley types saw extensive use in the NE but after the inevitable march of the DMUs, they were displaced to other areas. Thus, it's just possible that some saw out their lives on secondary services, even on the ECML. I have no photographic evidence that twins such as this were used in Peterborough Grantham all-stations stoppers, but they do make a pretty sight. As usual, Tony Geary completed them using Comet/Trice components and weathered the pair to perfection. Please note the tail lamp and screw coupling. Because my trains only run one way round I can indulge in such visual niceties. But, even if your last vehicles have to use tension-locks, please make sure there's a tail lamp in place.  

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

I can recall (from outside the fence) the 'GE' and 'NE' prefixes coming into use and I'm fairly sure that it was either very late in the 1950s or into the early 1960s with the latter slightly more likely.  I can certainly only recall seeing 'GE' on maroon painted hauled stock but that doesn't mean that it didn't appear on vehicles still lingering in blood & custard of course.  Sorry I can't accurately date it but it was reported in magazines at the time.

[stewartingram]

Ok I'll set the scene - I was at school just south of Cambridge station, c1960-65; we viewed the line from the bottom of the school premises at breaks, and from the cattle market at lunchtimes. I had started 'modelling' (cringes at the thought...) whilst there at about the time of the demise of Hornby-Dublo (c1962?), and my monthly magazine was Modern Railways (or whatever it was called at that time) as it did carry some trainspotting gen. I remember the quote in it of GE lettering appearing, around the same time as maroon ends and yellow cantrail stripes, though I stress not all at precisely the same time! Now bearing in mind the comments on the other thread about memory and lifetime, and in particular one of the latest concerning compressing relevant memories of a journey, I reckon we must be talking about c1963 for the intro of GE prefixes? Certainly crimson/cream was confined to memory (in normal use anyway), and diesels were the norm by this time. I am sure that it must have been the maroon period.

 

Stewart

[Mallard60022]

Beautiful coaches Tony. The final shot of the steel artic; great weathering, classic look.

P

[gr.king]

Following the earlier debate about photo stacking (or not) and the Phoenix SRG aluminium kits versus Southern Pride etched sides for 1935 Gresley steel panelled stock, I thought I might just get away with putting these pictures on here, without muscling in too much on Tony's domain. These are my previously mentioned re-worked Phoenix kits. I'm afraid my photography isn't "pro" as I don't have pro camera, pro lighting or pro skills, but I've done my "reasonable best" to apply the kind of methods that I've picked up by watching clever people take pictures:

 

Edited August 11, 2013 by gr.king

[Mallard60022]

How the h**l have you got hold of Phoenix Kits. many of us have tried and failed for many years and that debate has 'raged' elsewhere. Beautiful rake(s) GRK;

(rather nice loco too!)

P

[gr.king]

It's at least five years, maybe eight since I bought and built the kits. It was certainly in the days when the BRM show at Doncaster was in the original building, and Phoenix had a stand there at one or two of the shows, although I actually got the kits ordered by phone following contact via the Southern Railways Group / Phoenix Kits website. Nearly all of the moulded plastic underframe and roof fittings that came with the kits were of little or no use for LNER Gresley coaches, presumably all "borrowed" Southern pattern items. They all went in the spares box and various MJT packets were opened instead, along with a fair bit of improvisation from scratch. Even as recently as then, definitely within the last eight years, it still seemed "normal" to me to have to go to some lengths with certain kits in order to get a result at an acceptable standard. How some people squeal now if a kit doesn't almost fall together to produce a perfect model.........

[Tony Wright]

Many thanks to Graeme king for posting the pictures of his 1935 steel-bodied artics built from Phoenix kits. He's certainly not 'muscling into my domain'  (do I have a domain?) and I'm personally delighted when people expand topics, especially when it's showing examples of their work. All the cars 'sit' perfectly, and there's no 'rubber-like' characteristics of any kind (build-wise or camera-wise). Perhaps it's an advantage not to have a 'pro' camera in this case. The painting is exquisitely done, and you've taken the models much further than using just what's provided in the kit. I notice you've not used the BSL/Phoenix bogies. Good, for though these are beautifully free-running, they're really heavy-duty Gresley bogies in appearance, and should only be used for the centre bogie. Note how deep the sides of the bogies are on the other set. Are the ones you've used old Hornby Gresley bogies? Though these have the right depth of frame, they carry too many footboards. Though some should be present, you need to nip one or two off. Still, at least there are footboards. One extremely expensive set I photographed recently had none at all! 

 

Apologies if I appear to be pedantic (though your Ivatt Class C1 looks stunning, it really should have ten-spoke bogie wheels!), but if it leads to more accurate models, then that's all I'm trying to do. If this thread turns into a 'critique' of models I'd be delighted - first in the list will be mine, because I've perpetuated some howlers in my time. I'm also immensely gratified by seeing individuals' work appearing. Something that someone has actually made, and I can't stress that firmly enough in an age of uniformity. 

 

Finally, Graeme, please get in touch and arrange to have some more pictures taken for inclusion in the magazine. There must be a whole series you can produce on your models and modifications.

[New Haven Neil]

re The PC Gresley BG:

 

I recall a 'few', ahem, years ago a member in our club (South Shields MRS) making one in blood and custard, with the same disappointment Tony has expressed about the panelling.  It re-appeared the following week with the edge of the panels highlighted in an 'L' shape with a fine Rotring drawing pen, and when weathered it completely lifted the model into a different league.  Oddly it's the only piece of rolling stock I ever recall him making!

[gr.king]

Certainly I used  "old" Hornby Gresley bogies for the outers on the twins, and for those on the short compo. I couldn't be bothered to build or to pay for more exotic examples. Bachmann bogies, although of the Thompson era, looked that bit heavier and were devoid of footboards so looked about right for the articulation units.

Quite right about the Atlantic having too many spokes in its bogie wheels. I was being a skinflint at that point (again) and just used what DJH then supplied in the box.

I'll be in touch soon. I seem to spend a lot of time trying to get round tuits lately......

Edited August 12, 2013 by gr.king

[Mallard60022]

"I'm also immensely gratified by seeing individuals' work appearing. Something that someone has actually made, and I can't stress that firmly enough in an age of uniformity".

Tony, please do not forget that many of these individuals were either actually 'taught' by you (not at school I hasten to add) or inspired by your write ups or seeing your actual models running on various layouts. The DVDs too have been such useful vis aids.

P

[Guest 2750]

"I'm also immensely gratified by seeing individuals' work appearing. Something that someone has actually made, and I can't stress that firmly enough in an age of uniformity".

Tony, please do not forget that many of these individuals were either actually 'taught' by you (not at school I hasten to add) or inspired by your write ups or seeing your actual models running on various layouts. The DVDs too have been such useful vis aids.

P

 

I would like to echo Phil on that. I'm gearing up to building my Dave Alexander J25, and your two DVDs on Kit Building have been instrumental, as has the Improving RTR DVD. 

Many Thanks Tony.

Edited August 13, 2013 by 2750

[Cleefy]

I would like to echo Phil on that. I'm gearing up to building my Dave Alexander J25, and your two DVDs on Kit Building have been instrumental, as has the Improving RTR DVD. 

Many Thanks Tony.

 

Apologies for another 'me too' post - on returning to the hobby I never intended to get into kit building, until one day I saw Tony's kit building DVDs going cheap and idle curiosity got the better of me. Now I'm working my way through one of Mike Edge's shunter kits and loving it. Well, mostly - admittedly there has been some frustration due to my own lack of ability, but I guess it helps to build character if not the kit itself!

 

So again, many thanks Tony for setting this particular neophyte off down the road of kit building. I have a long way to go and no idea how far I'll get, but if there's one thing of which us biker types are aware, it's that the journey is the reward

[Tony Wright]

Of possible interest as a taster. 

 

I'm presenting a step-by-step article on building this SE Finecast C12 for inclusion in a future issue of BRM. Having been highly-critical of some of the step-by-step articles in the current BRM, I thought I'd better put my money where my mouth is!

 

 

 

 

 

Jumping forward a couple of days the loco is now complete.

 

 

 

 

 

[HerbertHopkins]

Very nice Tony, I look forward to seeing it painted. Will you be painting it yourself or shipping it out to Mr Rathbone?

[Mallard60022]

Good looking little tank. Nice one Tony.

P