Wright writes.....

[Woodcock29]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

Hello Andrew. There are two photos, both in John Quick's book on GCR loco liveries, which show 1020 and 1031 with the smaller tenders. The caption for 1031 says it was taken in 1903, so they possibly ran with those tenders for a year or so.

 

1031 is the one Peter Denny built for Buckingham and the model has the small tender, so I think he must have seen that photo when he built it. By 1907, the period of the layout, it would have had the larger tender, so it is technically out of period but I won't be changing it!

 

I have a D9 to build in O gauge plus a started scratchbuild in EM, so I will hopefully build the right tenders for those.

 

Cheers,

 

Tony

Tony G

I have found a couple of photos in DL Franks Great Central Remembered that might be 3250 gallon tenders attached to 11Bs.

 

I don't have John's LIvery book as my main period of interest is the 1930s. But interesting to know they are in there.

 

Andrew

[Tony Wright]

With talk of forthcoming RTR A5s, a kit-built selection which run (and have run) on Little Bytham...........

 

Firstly, a Craftsman example.

 

 

 

 

This was built/painted/weathered by Tony Geary, and I bought it off him when he moved up to O Gauge. It was a regular on Charwelton and now sees service on LB. 

 

Tony widened the bunker to scale, though the top lamp bracket needs lowering from the smokebox to the smokebox door. I changed the bogie/pony wheels.

 

Another Craftsman A5.......

 

 

 

This one still has the too-narrow bunker, and also the incorrect (for BR days) front top lamp bracket position. 

 

It came from the collection of a deceased modeller and I bought it. Who built it, I have no idea. It ran 'all right', but not to my satisfaction, so a partial strip-down, adjustment, new-pick-ups, a clean and oil, and it's now a lovely runner. I also changed the bogie/pony wheels on this model.

 

Observers please note that I've now beefed-up the huge telegraph poles on LB. 

 

Now, a Nu-Cast A5......

 

 

I bought this from the estate of the late Roy Jackson. It's definitely not his work and, putting it kindly, it was a bit 'rough'. It had (obviously) EM frames, but I made an OO chassis for it.

 

 

After stripping, part-dismantling and rebuilding it, I painted/weathered it, finally selling it on last year.

 

A5s could be regularly seen at Grantham and Peterborough, so one on a train in between? 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

More on A5s..........

 

 

A wider view of 69800. This was the model loaned to Sonic. 

 

I keep on mentioning 'layout locos', but it's in this context that my models are expected to run. To be seen as part of a 'whole' scene (which includes more-realistic big 'poles). 

 

A close-up like this............

 

 

Can be very cruel indeed (especially if I've rebuilt/painted a model).

 

I think the bunker width is correct on the Nu-Cast A5. 

 

 

And, just to prove that A5s were at Grantham (though their work was mainly to Nottingham). 

 

Is Sonic going to produce the later-built A5s?

 

 

Longer, LH drive, round buffers and with lower fittings.

 

What handsome locos these big tanks were. I was lucky enough to see several of the earlier examples at Manchester London Road in the '50s. 

[Barry Ten]

Apologies for the digression back to Princesses, but I've run into a bit of an identity crisis:

 

 

Perhaps naively, I assumed that Hornby would have got the identity of this loco correct for the type of boiler it's carrying. Although I repainted it from LMS black into BR green, I kept the name and number for the time being. However, the boiler is of the long-barrel type with the shorter firebox as originally fitted to the first batch. Marie Louise was one of the later batches and although there was some boiler swapping between the two series, 6206  never carried the earlier type. The visual giveaway is that the longer fireboxes extend to about the middle of the rear splasher, whereas this one doesn't. To be fair this was an old 80s-era Hornby model.

 

Why not renumber it as 6200 or 6201? Because then the valve gear is wrong, with these locos having a motion bracket behind the slide bars, not in front. The Comet gear is correct (ish) for the 6203 onward, excepting 6205. Fortunately, 6204, 6208, 6210, 6211 and 6212 did all receive the earlier boiler at some point, but then (going by the details in the Irwell book) it's always with a separate dome and top-feed, so incompatible with the boiler as depicted by Hornby. The options then seem to be either ignoring the difference between the boilers, or renumbering to one of the later series that did carry the early boiler, while also changing the boiler details. I don't think it's an option to renumber to 6200 or 6201 in BR condition even if I ignored the valve gear issue, as the top feed still needs altering. That will mean, at the very least, some careful surgery and a respray of the boiler, so not a trivial job by any means.

 

What was it Pope said about a little learning?

 

Al

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 21, 2022 by Barry Ten
typo

[PMP]

Here’s a pic of the engineering prototype livery sample, and there’s a short video here of both LNER  & BR versions 

 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, PMP said:

Here’s a pic of the engineering prototype livery sample, and there’s a short video here of both LNER  & BR versions 

 

Thanks Paul,

 

I've been told today that the chimneys on the production models will be correct.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[zr2498]

Came across these today. Interesting animations. No sound unfortunately.

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Very interesting,

 

Thanks Dave.

 

I've just got a book to review from Crecy. It's called How a Steam Locomotive Works, by Dominic Wells. It also looks very interesting. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[robmcg]

On 20/02/2022 at 22:14, Headstock said:

 

Good morning David,

 

that's far more than just a photo of a RTR loco.

 

 

I hesitate to reply but would like to point out to those who find RTR boring that many who enjoy Tony's excellent and wide-ranging thread are somewhat limited in modelling ability, and derive great pleasure from it.

 

No intention of causing any argument whatsoever, but it takes all my skill to open a box, place an engine on a diorama and photograph it, while having huge admiration for the craftsmanship and skill others show here, I must accept that this is primarily about modelling, not purchasing and photographing RTR.  For what it's worth I have been paralysed for 47 years after a bike crash and serious multiple injuries, with only one working hand.

 

It shouldn't make any difference to appreciation of models, photography, or the quality of these things, but may add a little perspective to those who find my pictures a bit tiresome, there are certainly other places where they are shown and enjoyed, and I think some readers of Wright Writes enjoy photography too.

 

In fact, good photography is a lovely way to enhance craftsmanship, whether it be scratch-built, kit-built. or the work of RTR designers and assembly workers.

 

I'll leave it at that, thanks for looking at my pics regardless. 

[john new]

12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Very interesting,

 

Thanks Dave.

 

I've just got a book to review from Crecy. It's called How a Steam Locomotive Works, by Dominic Wells. It also looks very interesting. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Having recently reviewed it for the SLS Journal, I will be interested to read yours.

 

Incidentally bought a copy for my train mad grandson to feed his rapidly expanding railway knowledge.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, john new said:

Having recently reviewed it for the SLS Journal, I will be interested to read yours.

 

Incidentally bought a copy for my train mad grandson to feed his rapidly expanding railway knowledge.

Thanks John,

 

I imagine your 'critical' knowledge of the subject matter is greater than mine. 

 

Just glancing through, the illustrations seem very clear and the text easily understood. Some of the close-up photography will be of use to modellers, too.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Jesse Sim]

I think I’ve asked this before but doesn’t anyone know what issue High Dyke was in the MRJ?

 

A friends got all issues so I’m hoping to snag it up. 

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, robmcg said:

 

I hesitate to reply but would like to point out to those who find RTR boring that many who enjoy Tony's excellent and wide-ranging thread are somewhat limited in modelling ability, and derive great pleasure from it.

 

No intention of causing any argument whatsoever, but it takes all my skill to open a box, place an engine on a diorama and photograph it, while having huge admiration for the craftsmanship and skill others show here, I must accept that this is primarily about modelling, not purchasing and photographing RTR.  For what it's worth I have been paralysed for 47 years after a bike crash and serious multiple injuries, with only one working hand.

 

It shouldn't make any difference to appreciation of models, photography, or the quality of these things, but may add a little perspective to those who find my pictures a bit tiresome, there are certainly other places where they are shown and enjoyed, and I think some readers of Wright Writes enjoy photography too.

 

In fact, good photography is a lovely way to enhance craftsmanship, whether it be scratch-built, kit-built. or the work of RTR designers and assembly workers.

 

I'll leave it at that, thanks for looking at my pics regardless. 

Thanks for that Rob,

 

I think all of us find some aspects of railway modelling boring; I certainly do - all that Bytham point rodding, for instance; all 35' of it. Now it's done and finished, however, it really was well worth my efforts. 

 

In my usual 'hypocritical' way, I admit to finding RTR boring at times as well. Now that shows are coming back, I'll warrant that in the next few months I'll see a load of W1s (in all three forms) running on layouts. Almost all will be Hornby ones. There's nothing 'wrong' with that, but, hitherto, to see any W1 on a layout would mean its source would be scratch-built, kit-built or heavily modified. It thus, at least to me, would have a 'story' to tell, which I'd always find interesting. The fact that the Hornby 60700 is probably more accurate than my quarter-century-old kit-built one is rather annoying, I must admit.  

 

At one show, I saw two identical Bachmann Scottish D11s sitting side by side on a layout. Both had just been bought. They were both on the layout for the duration. I felt it was absurd, and 'questioned' one of the operators. I was told that they belonged to different club members (club democracy insisted that all members had a right to run what they liked). When I asked could they not be altered/renumbered/renamed/etc., I was informed that such actions would mean they'd be worth less. I walked away! 

 

I think part of my 'problem' is that current RTR is far superior to the vast majority of what's been made. Up to the end of the last century, it was the opposite. Most RTR up to then was awful - tender drives, armoured valve gear, split chassis (which did just that!), hopeless detail and crude finishes were endemic. Not now, and, especially with regard to complex liveries, even the top pro painters would struggle to match most. 

 

Yet, such is my 'obstinacy' that I still prefer to make my own locos and rolling stock. In the past, the reason was that I could always make mine 'better' than any RTR equivalent; or, in most cases, because there was no RTR equivalent. However, I don't now mind my efforts being 'worse' than RTR equivalents. They'll always by 'mine' in a unique way, but, I accept that others can derive a lot of pleasure from owning RTR stuff. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[polybear]

4 minutes ago, Jesse Sim said:

I think I’ve asked this before but doesn’t anyone know what issue High Dyke was in the MRJ?

 

A friends got all issues so I’m hoping to snag it up. 

 

Hiya Jesse,

Issue 180; there's a searchable index here:

 

https://www.modelrailwayjournal.com/

[john new]

22 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks John,

 

I imagine your 'critical' knowledge of the subject matter is greater than mine. 

 

Just glancing through, the illustrations seem very clear and the text easily understood. Some of the close-up photography will be of use to modellers, too.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I liked it overall but was critical of the physical book, images too close at their inside edges to a very tight binding rendering it an uncomfortable read.  Sadly, as digital page layout has made it easier, I find many of the books I have recently had for review are badly let down by modern page layout ideas, double page spreads which therefore are obviously crossing the central spine area are a particular annoyance as they ruin what would otherwise be a good photo. I have done some book editing/page layout and some of the basics my late father taught as an Art School lecturer (so I picked up as a boy) have been forgotten.

[Headstock]

9 hours ago, robmcg said:

 

I hesitate to reply but would like to point out to those who find RTR boring that many who enjoy Tony's excellent and wide-ranging thread are somewhat limited in modelling ability, and derive great pleasure from it.

 

No intention of causing any argument whatsoever, but it takes all my skill to open a box, place an engine on a diorama and photograph it, while having huge admiration for the craftsmanship and skill others show here, I must accept that this is primarily about modelling, not purchasing and photographing RTR.  For what it's worth I have been paralysed for 47 years after a bike crash and serious multiple injuries, with only one working hand.

 

It shouldn't make any difference to appreciation of models, photography, or the quality of these things, but may add a little perspective to those who find my pictures a bit tiresome, there are certainly other places where they are shown and enjoyed, and I think some readers of Wright Writes enjoy photography too.

 

In fact, good photography is a lovely way to enhance craftsmanship, whether it be scratch-built, kit-built. or the work of RTR designers and assembly workers.

 

I'll leave it at that, thanks for looking at my pics regardless. 

 

Good afternoon Robert,

I'm not keen on the way you do things rather than what you do, you sometimes take other peoples artwork, other peoples photographs and other peoples paintings and coble them together and claim it as your own work. I can see were you are getting some of your material from and it is not right. You provide no credits for sources and I doubt that you have asked permission of the copyright holders.

I'm a working artist who has had his work stolen in the past and used to advertise somebody else's digital services. I can tell you now, I sued their asses. The pandemic has been a difficult financial time for many creatives, especially freelancers. Their work is their income and their reputation. As for those who support what you are doing, no doubt they are in financial clover but the shoe would very quickly be on the other foot if it was their work that was being misappropriated.

Perhaps you would consider crediting the artwork and photographs that you are using or at least provide reassurance that you have received the creative persons permission to use their work. Expensive stock photography may not be an option for your hobby but I'm sure that if you can't do so yourself,  those who support you would be willing to go out and take suitable photographs for you to use. Tony or others may be able to help in this regard.
 

Edited February 22, 2022 by Headstock

[LNERandBR]

58 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

In my usual 'hypocritical' way, I admit to finding RTR boring at times as well. Now that shows are coming back, I'll warrant that in the next few months I'll see a load of W1s (in all three forms) running on layouts. Almost all will be Hornby ones. There's nothing 'wrong' with that, but, hitherto, to see any W1 on a layout would mean its source would be scratch-built, kit-built or heavily modified. It thus, at least to me, would have a 'story' to tell, which I'd always find interesting. The fact that the Hornby 60700 is probably more accurate than my quarter-century-old kit-built one is rather annoying, I must admit.  

 

This happened when Hornby brought out its J50. A freind of mine has a kit built example which has a lot of sentimental value to him. When people see it at shows on his layout they presume its a Hornby one.

[johndon]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Now that shows are coming back, I'll warrant that in the next few months I'll see a load of W1s (in all three forms) running on layouts.

 

I suspect that the same will be true of the KR Models Consett Iron Ore wagons.  They spent their entire lives running in rakes of 8 or 9 from Tyne Dock to Consett but I'm just waiting for the first one I see parked, alone, in a siding on a GWR branch line...

 

 

[davidw]

1 hour ago, johndon said:

 

I suspect that the same will be true of the KR Models Consett Iron Ore wagons.  They spent their entire lives running in rakes of 8 or 9 from Tyne Dock to Consett but I'm just waiting for the first one I see parked, alone, in a siding on a GWR branch line...

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

I'll warrant that in the next few months I'll see a load of W1s (in all three forms) running on layouts. Almost all will be Hornby ones. There's nothing 'wrong' with that, but, hitherto, to see any W1 on a layout would mean its source would be scratch-built, kit-built or heavily modified.

 

And Thompsons

Edited February 22, 2022 by davidw

[APOLLO]

One good thing about modelling USA Railroads is that you can more or less run anything you want with anything you want, where you want in virtually any timeframe (within reason) and probably find a photo to back it up !!

 

 

As for Robs images - keep 'em coming, they are superb.

 

Brit15

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good afternoon Robert,

I'm not keen on the way you do things rather than what you do, you sometimes take other peoples artwork, other peoples photographs and other peoples paintings and coble them together and claim it as your own work. I can see were you are getting some of your material from and it is not right. You provide no credits for sources and I doubt that you have asked permission of the copyright holders.

I'm a working artist who has had his work stolen in the past and used to advertise somebody else's digital services. I can tell you now, I sued their asses. The pandemic has been a difficult financial time for many creatives, especially freelancers. Their work is their income and their reputation. As for those who support what you are doing, no doubt they are in financial clover but the shoe would very quickly be on the other foot if it was their work that was being misappropriated.

Perhaps you would consider crediting the artwork and photographs that you are using or at least provide reassurance that you have received the creative persons permission to use their work. Expensive stock photography may not be an option for your hobby but I'm sure that if you can't do so yourself,  those who support you would be willing to go out and take suitable photographs for you to use. Tony or others may be able to help in this regard.
 

Good afternoon Andrew,

 

I have a great respect for freelancers, having been one myself as part of one of my past careers. 

 

It is, indeed, not right if others' work is 'misappropriated' (though it would appear not for financial gain in the case you cite). 

 

I don't see a problem in 'sexing up' images of RTR models taken by oneself. Despite continuous 'erosion' of our ways of life, it's still a free society. Hornby obviously thought the technique was worthwhile, because some of these sorts of images were used in a past catalogue. I have to say, I didn't agree with that (it would appear others didn't, too, because the current Hornby catalogue has none). In my view, catalogue images should show a model as it is, not extensively 'modified' in digital form. 

 

If it's a person's only means of 'creativity' (for whatever reason), then I'm not going to complain about that (even though the process, though highly-skilled in some cases, does not particularly appeal to me). The latter said, it does please many, though not all. 

 

Are there separate threads for such things? I don't particularly mind them appearing on here (I've said on so many occasions that WWs is definitely not my 'property'), but too many............? 

 

I've lost count of the number of times my photographs have appeared in print, in adverts, in promotions and on the web where I'm not credited (and certainly haven't been paid). I don't mind clubs and societies using my work FOC, but when it appears in books, and no acknowledgement is made, it's a bit galling.

 

Finally, thanks, to you and others, for enabling Wright writes to pass another 100 pages!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited February 22, 2022 by Tony Wright
tautology

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good afternoon Robert,

I'm not keen on the way you do things rather than what you do, you sometimes take other peoples artwork, other peoples photographs and other peoples paintings and coble them together and claim it as your own work. I can see were you are getting some of your material from and it is not right. You provide no credits for sources and I doubt that you have asked permission of the copyright holders.

I'm a working artist who has had his work stolen in the past and used to advertise somebody else's digital services. I can tell you now, I sued their asses. The pandemic has been a difficult financial time for many creatives, especially freelancers. Their work is their income and their reputation. As for those who support what you are doing, no doubt they are in financial clover but the shoe would very quickly be on the other foot if it was their work that was being misappropriated.

Perhaps you would consider crediting the artwork and photographs that you are using or at least provide reassurance that you have received the creative persons permission to use their work. Expensive stock photography may not be an option for your hobby but I'm sure that if you can't do so yourself,  those who support you would be willing to go out and take suitable photographs for you to use. Tony or others may be able to help in this regard.
 

Good afternoon Andrew,

 

I have a great respect for freelancers, having been one myself as part of one of my past careers. 

 

It is, indeed, not right if others' work is 'misappropriated' (though it would appear not for financial gain in the case you cite). 

 

I don't see a problem in 'sexing up' images of RTR models taken by oneself. Despite continuous 'erosion' of our ways of life, it's still a free society. Hornby obviously thought the technique was worthwhile, because some of these sorts of images were used in a past catalogue. I have to say, I didn't agree with that (it would appear others didn't, too, because the current Hornby catalogue has none). In my view, catalogue images should show a model as it is, not extensively 'modified' in digital form. 

 

If it's a person's only means of 'creativity' (for whatever reason), then I'm not going to complain about that (even though the process, though highly-skilled in some cases, does not particularly appeal to me). The latter said, it does please many, though not all. 

 

Are there separate threads for such things? I don't particularly mind them appearing on here (I've said on so many occasions that WWs is definitely not my 'property'), but too many............? 

 

Finally, I've lost count of the number of times my photographs have appeared in print, in adverts, in promotions and on the web where I'm not credited (and certainly haven't been paid). I don't mind clubs and societies using my work FOC, but when it appears in books, and no acknowledgement is made, it's a bit galling.

 

Finally, thanks, to you and others, for enabling Wright writes to pass another 100 pages!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Duplicate post. Why does this happen? 

Edited February 22, 2022 by Tony Wright
duplicate post

[micklner]

Tony

 

        If you are seeing your photos printed in Books/Magazines etc, you should threaten action for breach iof your copyright. You may think its not worth bothering ? If so you may have a pleasant surprise, as a financial response from the publishers. I did on one occasion, and would do the same again if needed in the future.    

         Publishers know, that they can only print images that have been copyright confirmed and ownership listed for images. They may say they dont know that cannot hide behind that nonsense .They have a responsibilty to check all images for copyright before printing.

 

Mick

[PMP]

2 hours ago, APOLLO said:

One good thing about modelling USA Railroads is that you can more or less run anything you want with anything you want, where you want in virtually any timeframe (within reason) and probably find a photo to back it up !!

 

 

As for Robs images - keep 'em coming, they are superb.

 

Brit15

Only if you operate under ‘Rule 1’. Your enclosed image shows stock and locomotive types that only appear together in preservation. The truck shows that’s a relatively recent image, and it post dates all the locomotive types in the image.

[APOLLO]

1 hour ago, PMP said:

Only if you operate under ‘Rule 1’. Your enclosed image shows stock and locomotive types that only appear together in preservation. The truck shows that’s a relatively recent image, and it post dates all the locomotive types in the image.

 

Quite honestly who cares ?

 

For me model railways / railroads is a relaxing enjoyable hobby, no rules - and I'll leave it at just that.

 

Brit15