Wright writes.....

[The Stationmaster]

Well it was a double chimney 'Castle' by the look of that pic so it should truly have walked away with the Pullmans  

[Tony Wright]

Well it was a double chimney 'Castle' by the look of that pic so it should truly have walked away with the Pullmans  

Mike,

        Of course, and truly it did.

 

On a practical level, though, I have had issues with RTR locos pulling such a train. It's a ten-car rake, a mixture of Hornby donors, Comet sides, running on Mike Trice cast-metal bogies. The whole lot is quite heavy, though free-running. One Bachmann A1 really struggled (not my property), and Hornby A3s and A4s produce a fair bit of wheel slip before the inertia is overcome. None of my kit-built locos has the slightest problem in hauling this, and heavier rakes. 

 

But, this Hornby 'Castle' displayed no such RTR 'weakness', but then all GWR 4-6-0s were very sure-footed. So, full marks to the interloper! 

[gwrrob]

Well it was a double chimney 'Castle' by the look of that pic so it should truly have walked away with the Pullmans  

 

Doesn't she look splendid with that rake of Pullmans behind.It could be Torquay in the 30s.Fabulous work all round.

[lee74clarke]

Mike,

Of course, and truly it did.

 

On a practical level, though, I have had issues with RTR locos pulling such a train. It's a ten-car rake, a mixture of Hornby donors, Comet sides, running on Mike Trice cast-metal bogies. The whole lot is quite heavy, though free-running. One Bachmann A1 really struggled (not my property), and Hornby A3s and A4s produce a fair bit of wheel slip before the inertia is overcome. None of my kit-built locos has the slightest problem in hauling this, and heavier rakes.

 

But, this Hornby 'Castle' displayed no such RTR 'weakness', but then all GWR 4-6-0s were very sure-footed. So, full marks to the interloper!

[lee74clarke]

Apologies for miss post, stupid I-phone!

Tony, just wanted to say another one of the Bytham old boys has passed on. I know Peter Windsor had some snippets of info for the layout, a real shame he's gone.

Maybe with Wilf now discussing a bit of track laying through Bytham?

RIP Peter. (Won't be the same going past his house without seeing his two do fingered salute)

 

 

 

 

Mike,

Of course, and truly it did.

 

On a practical level, though, I have had issues with RTR locos pulling such a train. It's a ten-car rake, a mixture of Hornby donors, Comet sides, running on Mike Trice cast-metal bogies. The whole lot is quite heavy, though free-running. One Bachmann A1 really struggled (not my property), and Hornby A3s and A4s produce a fair bit of wheel slip before the inertia is overcome. None of my kit-built locos has the slightest problem in hauling this, and heavier rakes.

 

But, this Hornby 'Castle' displayed no such RTR 'weakness', but then all GWR 4-6-0s were very sure-footed. So, full marks to the interloper!

[The Stationmaster]

Doesn't she look splendid with that rake of Pullmans behind.It could be Torquay in the 30s.Fabulous work all round.

Does look splendid but such is Tony's modelling there's no doubt that we are looking at Little Bytham and very much the atmosphere of GN mainline.

[Tony Wright]

Does look splendid but such is Tony's modelling there's no doubt that we are looking at Little Bytham and very much the atmosphere of GN mainline.

Mike,

         It's very kind of you to say so, but I think true credit should be given to those who've really created most of the scene. The peerless trackwork is by Norman Solomon, the signal box and footbridge are the work of Ian Wilson, the signals the work of Mick Nicholson, the weathered wagons the work of Rob Davey and so on. I've done the surrounding scenery and made the platforms. I also built the train, but it's raised to something 'special' by Ian Rathbone's exquisite painting. So, it's really 'collective' modelling, some of it via horse-trading (I make locos for Ian W, have done pictures for Ian R and have co-opted with Norman on a DVD), but it would be remiss of me to have people believe that it's my modelling. . 

Edited April 16, 2014 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

Apologies for miss post, stupid I-phone!

Tony, just wanted to say another one of the Bytham old boys has passed on. I know Peter Windsor had some snippets of info for the layout, a real shame he's gone.

Maybe with Wilf now discussing a bit of track laying through Bytham?

RIP Peter. (Won't be the same going past his house without seeing his two do fingered salute)

 

 

 

Thanks Lee,

                    Both Pete and Wilf were great sources of anecdotal information - essential for trying to create a 'real' scene. Some of the tales about working in the Bytham gang were most enlightening. Wilf also had some splendid pictures he'd taken. 

[Paddy]

What a lovely Castle and a Hornby to boot! Ah it is hard to beat Swindon's finest. :-)

 

Little Bytham is looking good Tony. Any chance of a progress video update at some point in the future?

 

Kind regards

 

Paddy

[westerner]

Firstly Tony Thanks for a splendid day. I will hang the print you gave me of the above Powis Castle stretching its legs on Little Bytham in my railway (Wencombe) room. I must admit the A4 and the western Thundering through Little Bytham at a scale speed of probably more than Mallard's record brought a smile to all our faces. Thank you for the compliment on the weathering of both Western Queen (pretty filthy) and the Castle (just slightly weathered). One you missed when you processing the photograph for me was my 22xx. excuse my poor getting rid of the background

Edited April 16, 2014 by westerner

[Izzy]

Phil,

        Many thanks for the response, and for the praise of the pictures. But, that's all they are - pictures of a model. Looking at some other pictures of models recently, I'm puzzled as to actually what I'm looking at. It's all outstandingly clever, what with zone focusing, stacking and image combinations, but they're not 'real' pictures of model railway items in my opinion. Still, they're very pretty but for actually assessing a model's worth, I'm not sure. But, like paintings, perhaps they're not intended for that purpose.

 

Mine, for what it's worth, (and I've probably mentioned this before) are taken under 2,000 Watts of light, using a Nikon D3 and a 55mm micro lens stopped down to F32 (actually a twitch less). I take one shot, then 'fiddle' with it to the minimum in Paint Shop Pro, sharpening and clarifying as necessary. Occasionally I'll isolate an area (say, immediately underneath the footplate) and lighten it, but no more. It's a bit old-fashioned in a way - everything in focus by using a small aperture - just, in my opinion, as it should be. To truly give an accurate rendition of a model for 'assessment' needs, I wouldn't take any other sort of picture. 

 

How this thread behaves like a butterfly! 

 

 

 

Yes, and sorry to return to this aspect, but having just caught up with it perhaps I could add that the basic debate is one that has been on-going in photography circles for as long as I can remember i.e. is it a simply a method of image recording or an art form, which has now gained another whole layer of complication with digital imaging instead of film and the relative ease today with which anyone can indulge in image manipulation - a lot of which is pretty awful (depending on your viewpoint of course) compared with past film era days, although much was also quite dire back then.

 

Much concerned with digital today isn't always quite what it seems, for the main basics of photography remain as they always have, in that it is difficult to improve on the basic image quality of a shot if it's done right, but quite easy to degrade one, and that the quality of the equipment and the size of the image format still have a major impact. I cannot believe that some who use the smaller sensor 'compact' digital cameras try focus/image stacking with them. Optically they can deliver huge DOF by comparison with larger formats, ( which is why small apertures aren't needed or generally provided with them), and doing so only serves to lower the overall image file quality, which shouts out in high contrast edge definition - confused with sharpness/tonal clarity by many - and is now a feature of many images seen both online and in print. 

 

Still each to their own I suppose, and it does help to illustrate how wide individual opinions are as to what each person regards as to their taste. 

 

Izzy

[Tony Wright]

What a lovely Castle and a Hornby to boot! Ah it is hard to beat Swindon's finest. :-)

 

Little Bytham is looking good Tony. Any chance of a progress video update at some point in the future?

 

Kind regards

 

Paddy

I'm afraid it's very unlikely, Paddy.

 

Firstly, almost no progress on the layout has been made since 2010 - just the odd bit more recently.

 

Secondly, in terms of what it should have been, the first DVD was dire. Still photographs were missed out, 'yards' of footage of trains actually moving were omitted and I was very disappointed. Had Activity Media made the DVD, the results would have been so much better.

 

Finally, my days in front of a video camera have gone. Some might say 'Hurrah'!

 

But, thanks for asking........

[landscapes]

I'm afraid it's very unlikely, Paddy.

 

Firstly, almost no progress on the layout has been made since 2010 - just the odd bit more recently.

 

Secondly, in terms of what it should have been, the first DVD was dire. Still photographs were missed out, 'yards' of footage of trains actually moving were omitted and I was very disappointed. Had Activity Media made the DVD, the results would have been so much better.

 

Finally, my days in front of a video camera have gone. Some might say 'Hurrah'!

 

But, thanks for asking........

Good Morning Tony

 

I am very sorry to hear you are not making an updated video of your Little Bytham, I found your first DVD to be very inspirational indeed and I have nearly worn out my copy as well.

 

Very enjoyable to watch.

 

Best Regards

 

David

[New Haven Neil]

Crikey, here I am, a Geordie (ex-pat though!) thinking how good that Castle looks!  So it must be the collective modelling/weathering/photographic skills of all involved in that scene, and Hornby too....wow.  The loco exchanges redux?

 

As for imaging - I have no issues provided one is honest about whether an image has been manipulated or not.

[Tony Wright]

Some very interesting comments, and my grateful thanks for all the observations.

 

Returning again to image manipulation, having professionally used both 'traditional' and digital photography, digital processing is so much easier. Different skills, I admit, but still so much easier. Can you imagine what it would be like for posters on this site to have to use film, then process the results, then scan them, etc? I think not. And for top-class results on film, very high end cameras would be needed, way beyond even the best 35mm systems, though Barry Norman has produced some blinders with his Contax. Now, not only can 'budget' digital cameras give excellent results, the artificial lighting needed (or even no AL!) is nowhere near as intense or powerful. But, that's to dwell in the past, and it's gone. 

 

The comments about the 'brightness' of some published images, or even how 'chocolate box' (my description), over-processed and (almost) 'over-realistic' some can look (to the point that folk aren't really sure what's actually in front of the camera) have led me to a little experimentation. Firstly, though, I would say that lighting is still the key to 'successful' photography. We are, after all, trying to make our models/layouts look as realistic as possible, but not trying to cheat by righting wrongs digitally or putting in too much of what isn't there. Remember, our eyes will filter out the irrelevant when we view a layout at an exhibition, but take a picture and the 'unwanted' clutter attracts those same eyes far too much. 

 

 

For instance, I took this picture this morning. Conscious about what folk have said about things looking unnaturally blue and sunny for this country, I abandoned my lights and just lit this view with the ambient shed lighting and bounced (though very powerful) flash. I wanted to create a 'typical' English day, so no strong shadows. This is what came out pre-processing.

 

 

Next, I chose a suitably grey sky (taken, looking out to sea from near Sunderland - seascape skies give you the greatest atmospheric perspective) and added it as a new layer. Some cropping, sharpening and odd area lightening resulted, an hour later, in this image. No stacking was involved (surely everything in this view needing to be in focus IS in focus). The result (I hope), a typical (if slightly over-busy) scene depicting a typical spring/summer's day in Lincolnshire in 1958. No fiddling was done with regard to straightening things or taking out modelling errors - look at the grotty fit of the J6's dome! On a personal level, it's 'nice' to think that one's models can look 'realistic' - I made/modified the locos, but others built the stock.

 

 

In some ways, this shot is more redolent of the time in B&W.

 

 

 

Taken using the same lighting conditions, but this time given a graded blue sky - is this better (as a record) than a real sky? I think it looks better in B&W. I've taken this picture using a wider angle lens to get more in the picture, though it's from a very similar viewpoint to the first one. The scene is not as busy, so the surroundings, rather than just the train (hauled by a modified Hornby O1, by the way) take precedent. I'm reasonable pleased with my scenic modelling (to the right) but there is still much to do. Once again, everything needing to be in focus is in focus and there's no nonsense of computer-added smoke, which I've come to regard as entirely unnecessary - this is where 'progress' is definitely NOT beneficial in my opinion. Again, this picture took about an hour to process, but the scene took just a few minutes to set up and take.

 

This is a complete reversal to how I used to create such a scene on film. Though I cannot split Little Bytham's boards with ease, an exhibition layout could be. Were it an exhibition layout (like Biggleswade, Stoke, Charwelton) or many others,  I would not have the boards in the distance in place at all. Behind the remaining boards, I would suspend a sky fabric giving me a backscene. I'd then compose the whole scene on the ground glass screen at the back of the camera with the iris wide open (one got used to viewing things upside down), exploiting the camera's movements to maximise the depth of field. Then I'd remove the screen and clamp the film-holder in place, then remove the dark slide. Then I would open the camera lens' shutter (aperture set at F64 or less) on time exposure and wave a 500 Watt bulb towards the sky fabric for about five-six seconds. This would illuminate the sky in a uniform manner. Then I'd close the iris (the camera's lenses all had leaf shutters), illuminate the scene with much more light from two directions - 2,000 Watts to represent the sun and a hand-held 500 Watt lamp to soften the shadow, re-exposing for a second more or so. Occasionally, if needed, further exposures would be made, all on the same frame of film. All of this required a rock-steady tripod and 'seat of the pants' calculations. I'd take several different exposure combinations to make sure one was 'dead right'. When all was done, the dark slide would be replaced, and on to the next shot. All in all, each shot would take about half an hour to set up and take, but no post-taking 'fiddling' would be necessary once the transparency was processed. For most of the first decade, that's how all my layout pictures in BRM were taken. In truth, the shot was obtained and had to be correct at source - well lit, razor sharp focus, enormous depth of field and no computer jiggery-pokery. Proper photography! That said, I'd not go back. 

 

 

I then opened my curtains to let in reflected natural light, once more bouncing flash off the ceiling to soften any shadows. This was the result.

 

 

After processing, this was the effect - cropped, the blue of my background cloned, sharpened and selected areas lightened as necessary. Not liking the unrealistic curve of the tracks behind the bridge, I filled in the spaces with a neutral grey to make the effect less-obtrusive. Has it worked? Once more, I'm pleased with my own modelling, locos and stock-wise - kit-built B12/3, another modified Hornby O1 and kit or modified RTR vehicles. Norman Solomon's track, Mick Nicholson's signal and Ian Wilson's bridge look rather nice indeed. 

 

 

Since some observers seemed to like the gloomy Gresley Beat image, I thought I'd have a go of making something of it. Any thoughts?

 

Finally, I don't think anyone has the answers to what makes a really good model railway photograph. I think some of the images produced today in magazines are exceptionally good - praise where praise is due. That said, as mentioned, I dislike smoke effects, see stacking as an 'artificial' way to increase depth of field (does the nearest bit of ballast and the furthest telegraph pole have to be in focus?), think too many pictures are over-processed resulting in some weird effects and remain, firmly, a reactionary old f**t! Since I no longer take pictures of model railways (other than my own), perhaps I have no right to express a view. 

 

Anyway (not quite finally), you still have to have good modelling in front of the camera to get a decent result. If it's your own efforts, by your own hand or the collective talents of a group, so much the better in my opinion. But, one unwanted side-effect of razor-sharp photography is this. Should the modelling be a bit suspect, it's there in crystal clarity for everyone to see. Andy's pictures in BRM are bitingly-sharp, revealing, if you look at the current issue, an over-bridge on a layout which would collapse the moment, even the lightest weight were put on it. The point about stone arches is surely this - on both sides of the keystone all the others should form a wedge with the diminishing end pointing downwards! Just as in the taking of pictures, observation is the real key.

 

Edited to add a bit more and subtract some inane garblings!

Edited April 17, 2014 by Tony Wright

[gr.king]

I don't seem to be able to get this website's quotation tool to work at present, nor am I able to copy and paste from previous posts. Never mind, I can live with the inconvenience.

If some would say Hoorah regarding your absence from the screens Tony I doubt they would be in the majority, and no doubt some of those saying Hoorah would only be pulling your leg. Regardless of whether any politics or personal likes / dislikes come into it, video presentations by those such as yourself with knowledge and competence ought always to find a welcome in this hobby. Notwithstanding the favourable reception that any new videos would get, I do of course fully support your right NOT to be pestered to make more if you lack the inclination.

Edited April 17, 2014 by gr.king

[Paul Cram]

Very good Tony. I have come to the conclusion  that it is the unnaturally bright colours that detract from the realism and the selection above all look very realistic.

[coachmann]

Tony Wright said :-   Since some observers seemed to like the gloomy Gresley Beat image, I thought I'd have a go of making something of it. Any thoughts?

 

 

Yes, it looks even better now, one of the best in fact and worthy of a front cover on something. The railway environment looks dirty as it should...

Edited April 17, 2014 by coachmann

[coachmann]

Graduated the sky and rusted the rails and ballast. Will delete on prompting.....

 

After Triang's model muddied the waters, the sight of your lovely  B12 reminds how good a model of this class can look when done properly,

Edited April 17, 2014 by coachmann

[micklner]

Cracking pictures especially the K3 . Re the picture rafter et al just needs the top cropped and just as good as the sky version. Due to the angle of the photo you only lose the top of the signal otherwise both picture ae virtually ID.

 

Shame re videos , as always enjoyed them.

[Tony Wright]

Graduated the sky and rusted the rails and ballast. Will delete on prompting.....

post-18225-0-99168700-1397737303_thumb.jpg

 

After Triang's model muddied the waters, the sight of your lovely  B12 reminds how good a model of this class can look when done properly,

Larry,

          Why would I prompt you to delete? It's interesting to see your rendition, though the 'rusting' of the rails has also rusted part of the wheels, and nibbled at the smokebox of the B12. I still prefer 'mine' because that's how the track actually looks, but, perhaps, it should be warmer in tone. I suppose it's down to individual perception and preference.

 

Thanks for the comment on the B12, though, as a really accurate model, it's not really up there. I built it from a Coopercraft kit (one of only two known to be built which actually work - the display model was static).

 

 

Here is the pair - Jonathan Weallans built the one on the left (apologies if this image has appeared before). The boiler (plagiarised from the original Tr-ang B12?) is moulded in horrid resin and is too small a diameter - that of a B12/2; note the space beneath the spectacles. The tender body is also horrid resin. I threw mine away and substituted an original Tri-ang one. As such it's not high enough - note the difference between mine and Jonathan's.

 

 

Still, in a layout setting it's just about passable, even under a more 'dramatic' sky (apologies as well if this has appeared before).

 

 

A much better job could be made using a Crownline kit. I built this one for Gilbert Barnatt (Great Northern) and it's shown on his original Peterborough layout. Ian Rathbone painted it but what's happened to the front numberplate, I don't know.  

[Tony Wright]

Cracking pictures especially the K3 . Re the picture rafter et al just needs the top cropped and just as good as the sky version. Due to the angle of the photo you only lose the top of the signal otherwise both picture ae virtually ID.

 

Shame re videos , as always enjoyed them.

 

Top cropped? You mean like this?

 

Many thanks for the praise, by the way. It is appreciated.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Tony Wright

[New Haven Neil]

The only thing I don't like about the K3 shot is the white roof on the first coach.  It wouldn't be white long at the front of a train.  I'm all for the 'false' backgrounds, as I believe your comments about the eye only 'seeing' what it wants to when 'live' are totally correct.

 

I'm still swooning at the B12's too, correct or not they are lovely models of a fine loco design. 

 

Lovely, lovely photos again, I only wish I had half the modelling skills of those who input to your dream layout.

[Theakerr]

Tony, please don't take this the wrong way, but I for one do not give a hoot about all the technical details (I know I know)?  In fact pretty well all I do is scan through to look at the (ER) modelling pictures, which as an ex-pat who cannot get to MR shows values greatly

Edited April 17, 2014 by Theakerr

[micklner]

B1s and J6 original cropped.jpg

 

Top cropped? You mean like this?

 

Many thanks for the praise, by the way. It is appreciated.

        Yes , the eye is drawn to the Trains and layout surroundings and ignores the rear "clutter". I agree it looks better with the full signal but not enough to cause any problem to me.

       If you had only seen the cropped photo I personally doubt if many people would be bothered by what is in the background. IMHO

 

cheers