Wright writes.....

[Woodcock29]

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

And further still...........

 

 

 

Stoke Summit in OO.

 

 

 

Grantham in OO.

 

 

 

Gamston Bank in OO.

 

 

 

And Retford in EM.

 

I know of at least two models of Bawtry under construction, and then there's Jess Sim's Woolmer Green (which I'd like to take pictures next time I'm 'down under').

 

I've also taken pictures of Otterington, and Morpeth layouts, plus Princes Street Gardens, not to mention subjects on the Waverley route or on the Aberdeen road.  

 

Are there anymore?

Tony there is a model of Potters Bar, in the 30s I think, being built I think in France. Its seen from time to time on the LNER Model Railway Forum. This one interests me particularly as I spent my first 8.5 yrs living just up the road from the station, although I can only remember it when the widening was complete.

Andrew

[robmcg]

With recent ECML settings we need a photo from KX and what better than a Hornby W1 set into a photo by Paul Sankey's father and coloured by me...

 

Note from Paul Sankey;

A image that l had from my Dad which was a copy neg, the caption was Kings Cross 15-09-38 neg no: 111/007 was no note of the original photographer. Nice colourising!

 

 

And what a fine Hornby model!

 

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Edited February 23, 2022 by robmcg
typo

[Tony Wright]

15 minutes ago, john new said:

 

Off the top of my head in addition to the ex-LSWR lines mentioned I recall the following:-

• Bournemouth West - stunning example in 4mm
• Branksome (Albeit the goods yard and pottery spur only)
• One of the Devon viaducts in snow (Name forgotten but in a recent magazine)
• St Denys in N

Plus several fictional/fictitious iterations over time and also of the branches off it.

Good evening John,

 

From the GWR there's Ivybridge in 2mm.....

 

 

 

 

 

Exquisite!

 

And, I'd forgotten I'd photographed the WCML Brinklow, in N Gauge..............

 

 

Even a future ECML thoroughbred as well!

 

 

 

 

Very nicely done.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

16 minutes ago, robmcg said:

With recent ECML settings we need a photo from KX and what better than a Hornby W1 set into a photo by Paul Sankey's father and coloured by me...

 

Note from Paul Sankey;

A image that l had from my Dad which was a copy neg, the caption was Kings Cross 15-09-38 neg no: 111/007 was no note of the original photographer. Nice colourising!

 

 

And what a fine Hornby model!

 

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Good evening Rob,

 

It's fascinating how you get such striking imagery. I'm sure you get great pleasure from creating such pictures (and others derive pleasure from it, too).

 

However (always one of those from me!), your W1 has got the wrong tender (a streamlined non-corridor type). For this pre-War period, it should be a 1928 corridor type. 

 

A pedant's observation!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[cctransuk]

9 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good Afternoon Robert,

 

I don't wish to embarrass you by physically pointing out were you are not using public domain images. I've just looked at one of your images and found were you have got the original image from. The person that originally posted it holds the copywrite and makes it very clear that it is covered by 'All rights reserved'. At the very least, you must seek permission of the copywrite holder if you wish to use the image and provide a credit. It's simple with copyright images, illegal, don't use it. Legal, provide a credit. The responsibility is yours to check if the original image is genuinely in the public domain or not. This particular image makes it quite clear it is not.

 

All i'm asking of you, is if you use copywrite images, seek the permission of the copywrite holder and provide a credit. Some people will say yes, others may wish a payment, some will say no.

 

What I can't understand is why, despite numerous requests to do so, Rob stubbornly refuses to open his own thread in which to display his work.

 

I can therefore only conclude that he is not confident that it would attract the level of audience which he evidently craves.

 

Instead, he consistently posts in other people's popular threads, thereby exposing his images to the wider audience that such threads attract.

 

So, a challenge to Rob - please open your own thread for your images, and allow members to choose whether they wish to view your images.

 

.... and, before it is pointed out, I can and do block Rob's images - but this would not be necessary if he would simply open his own thread!

 

CJI.

Edited February 23, 2022 by cctransuk

[Northmoor]

Wow, this thread has become mean-spirited pretty quickly.

 

Think I'll give RMWeb a break for a while lest I say something I regret.  There are a few people who should already feel that way.

[APOLLO]

50 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Evening Apollo,

 

If that is the case, why have you set your images to C All rights reserved on your Flickr settings? Wouldn't under creative commons be more appropriate, if you don't mind people using your images? Do you know how to change you settings?

 

I'm unaware of such settings and there meaning, I'll have a look at it sometime. I was going to upload my many colour images of the 80's & 90's I'm slowly starting scanning, but as Flickr are now charging etc it's not worth the bother, besides being mostly banger blue tops diesels they are not really that interesting. I'll have a rethink in the future sometime.

 

Brit15

[APOLLO]

6 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Wow, this thread has become mean-spirited pretty quickly.

 

Think I'll give RMWeb a break for a while lest I say something I regret.  There are a few people who should already feel that way.

 

Has Vladimir joined ? - I would like to see some photos of his Trans-Siberian layout !!!!

 

Brit15

[Jesse Sim]

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

And further still...........

 

 

 

Stoke Summit in OO.

 

 

 

Grantham in OO.

 

 

 

Gamston Bank in OO.

 

 

 

And Retford in EM.

 

I know of at least two models of Bawtry under construction, and then there's Jess Sim's Woolmer Green (which I'd like to take pictures next time I'm 'down under').

 

I've also taken pictures of Otterington, and Morpeth layouts, plus Princes Street Gardens, not to mention subjects on the Waverley route or on the Aberdeen road.  

 

Are there more? 

 

Can anyone else take us through such a 'model journey' along the WCML (I've photographed models of Rugby, Preston, Clifton and Lowther, Oxenholme, Shap and Carlisle, but that's all), the Western main lines to the West Midlands, to the SW, or the SR main line to the SW? I'm struggling to find model images of those other than Acton Main Line or Basingstoke (it doesn't mean I'm partisan, either, though I might have forgotten). 

 

May we see images of the other trunk routes in model form from other photographers, please? 

 

 

You honour me sir, 

 

All services at Woolmer Green have been put on hold due to ahhh flooding…. 

 

I never knew there was a model of Welwyn North. Is it possible to ask for a few more pictures? I’ve never seen them and couldn’t find anything on the internet.

 

EDIT: Just seen a previous post about asking for photos of the layout. 
I had made plans to build Welwyn North with Digswell Viaduct. Obviously in the future and no doubt would be my layout of a lifetime. But I feel I might die before finishing the viaduct…….. 

Edited February 23, 2022 by Jesse Sim

[PupCam]

1 hour ago, robmcg said:

 

 

That's very clever!    

 

Is it your photograph of the model and how many attempts at getting the right angle and focal length to get the loco to match the scene?  

Must be very tricky!

 

By the way, is the W1 a P4 conversion?   It's sitting on rails 4' 8.5"  rails ...... 

 

Alan

Edited February 23, 2022 by PupCam

[96701]

52 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

besides being mostly banger blue tops diesels they are not really that interesting. 

 

I'm interested in banger blue, it's my era too.

[St Enodoc]

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

The 'big engine' policy? Counting the V2s, the LNER and its successors had more RA9 locos than all the rest put together. It had near 400 units bigger and heavier than a King, and only the Princess Royals, Princess Coronations and Merchant Navies came near to the heaviest/largest. 

Perhaps the locos on the Other Railways were better and could do the work without being so huge?

 

INCOMING!

[robmcg]

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Rob,

 

It's fascinating how you get such striking imagery. I'm sure you get great pleasure from creating such pictures (and others derive pleasure from it, too).

 

However (always one of those from me!), your W1 has got the wrong tender (a streamlined non-corridor type). For this pre-War period, it should be a 1928 corridor type. 

 

A pedant's observation!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Thanks for  your tolerance Tony, I shall mostly keep contributions to my own talbletop locomotive portraits in future.

 

The tender was from a photo by me of a Hornby Mallard in a similar setting, I thought at the time it was probably wrong for the W1, and it was. 

 

Nice to see the recent photos of various layouts of ECML locations and stations, there is so much history and romance in its 396 miles.  . 

 

Thanks again for your forebearance, I know there are so many ways to appreciate modelling, the nature of suspension of disbelief, and certainly modified photos are dangerous ground.  I'll be more restrained, I have qute a few followers on a couple of Facebook pages which display my pictures and I have no desire to cause offence here.  Many are actually ex-railwaymen from steam days and some leave very nice comments with interesting anecdotes. Having been a keen kit-builder years ago and always having had a love of railways I can understand and will try to respect the accent here being on craftsmanship and modelling rather than my own personal interpretation of British steam with a camera, RTR models, and software.. 

 

May Wright Writes continue unabated.

Edited February 24, 2022 by robmcg
addition

[robmcg]

5 hours ago, PupCam said:

 

That's very clever!    

 

Is it your photograph of the model and how many attempts at getting the right angle and focal length to get the loco to match the scene?  

Must be very tricky!

 

By the way, is the W1 a P4 conversion?   It's sitting on rails 4' 8.5"  rails ...... 

 

Alan

 

Thanks. Yes it's my photo of an 00 W1 adapted from a photo of Mallard with what is an incorrect tender for the W1 in 1938, the wheels and track are from the original 1938 photo, coloured  by me, the techniques used are copy-re-size-paste with any number of adjustments and often a bit of painting with edges and effects. 

 

But as promised I won't do too much of this on WW because it's Tony's celebration of modelling which is at the core of the thread.

Edited February 24, 2022 by robmcg
correction

[PMP]

7 hours ago, APOLLO said:

 

 

So sad these days when everything is monetised, and thought (well, image) police are everywhere.

 

Brit15

I used to do part time freelance photography work, and can see exactly the point regarding unauthorised use. As a freelancer I bought ‘pro’ equipment and used it to take images. But there’s additional costs too. If I went to an event, I’d be paying travel etc to get there. If I took a saleable image, why shouldn’t I as ‘author’ be able to make as much hay as I can from it while the sun shines, after all I’ve put money down to ‘provide’ that image. If the image is used by other people to further their own aims, be that commercial or private, the author should have the right to determine where it’s used, and if they get paid for it. 
It has actually happened to me in a model railway context. A picture of my layout was used to advertise a show, in a magazine. My layout wasn’t even going  to be at the show. The copyright watermark had been ‘cut off’ the bottom. So an organisation was happy to put out a misleading advert using imagery they hadn’t asked to use, let alone paid for. Allegedly found on a search on Google, a result I couldn’t replicate. However read Google t&c’s and they explain just because you find an image with their software, doesn’t give you the right to use it.

 

So I definitely get where the ‘image police’ are coming from. In some cases that persons living (the image owner), is being materially affected. 

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

You honour me sir, 

 

All services at Woolmer Green have been put on hold due to ahhh flooding…. 

 

I never knew there was a model of Welwyn North. Is it possible to ask for a few more pictures? I’ve never seen them and couldn’t find anything on the internet.

 

EDIT: Just seen a previous post about asking for photos of the layout. 
I had made plans to build Welwyn North with Digswell Viaduct. Obviously in the future and no doubt would be my layout of a lifetime. But I feel I might die before finishing the viaduct…….. 

Good morning Jesse,

 

I'll see if I can find them (the old computer dates from the last century and needs time to build up steam!).

 

There is another, full page, shot of Welwyn North on page 16 of my LNER Pacifics Modelling Options, Irwell Press, 2010, showing an A1 leaving Welwyn South Tunnel's south portal (do you have a copy of this successful volume? If not, I'll see if I can get you one). 

 

The layout was built by Chris Worby. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Chamby]

With regard to ‘monetising’ photographs, I understand and fully support the argument regarding photographs that someone has taken, that are then acquired and re-purposed without the originator’s permission.

 

It feels wrong when the person claiming ownership has simply acquired the images from somewhere else, for the purpose of making money.  They have had no contribution whatsoever into the image’s creation, it is seen by them as an investment and the use of copyright is purely for financial gain from someone else’s work.  This essentially removes these images from the public domain for educational and reference purposes.  They’re mine now... pay me or hands off!

 

Unfortunately I think this practice will become more common, with the advent of Non-Fungible Tokens that make it easier to create financial value and transferable ownership from digital imagery.  It is a shame when our society places personal financial value creation above the more altruistic values of wider education and historical reference.  

 

Note:  I refer specifically to items of purely photographic record here, as distinct from images that were originally created to be a work of art.

[Tony Wright]

I'd be horrified if Wright writes started to become 'mean-spirited'. 

 

It is nothing without its diversity. It is certainly not just about what I do, and certainly not just about Little Bytham. 

 

I'm very happy with its approach to 'constructive criticism'. My belief is that the moment anyone posts an image on here, then 'constructive criticism' is automatically invited. I definitely expect it if any of my work appears on here. 

 

I'm also very happy with the range of 'modelling' seen on here; whether that be the appearance of some of the finest things ever created in railway miniature (nothing of mine), through to the 'humblest' of beginnings. As is known, I don't have that much time for endless images of RTR (if one is going to be a hypocrite, then no half-measures!), unless it's been extensively altered/improved/weathered; more especially by the person who's created the item themselves (I'm not particularly interested in second-hand stories, even though any really decent painting is not my work). 

 

If, for whatever reason, a 'modeller' is 'restricted' in what he/she can achieve with regard to 'creativity', then, as long as it's their work, it has merit in my view. 

 

This thread is definitely not exclusive; and, by that, it might imply that I don't 'like' everything which might appear. However, I have no right to say 'no'. I'm not a moderator (nor ever want to be one), and the diligent team which is will surely intercept anything which is inappropriate. I happily post on a few 'popular' other threads, where I feel I can make a 'positive/constructive' contribution. 

 

Tolerance is definitely a virtue. 

 

My thanks to all posters. 

[Jesse Sim]

16 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Jesse,

 

I'll see if I can find them (the old computer dates from the last century and needs time to build up steam!).

 

There is another, full page, shot of Welwyn North on page 16 of my LNER Pacifics Modelling Options, Irwell Press, 2010, showing an A1 leaving Welwyn South Tunnel's south portal (do you have a copy of this successful volume? If not, I'll see if I can get you one). 

 

The layout was built by Chris Worby. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I don’t have that book no, I think I know the shot you’re talking about. It’s in the blue book of the GN mainline one, can’t remember the name….

 

It’s either going to be Welwyn North or Essendine….. the latter more then likely as I have a nice track plan already from you. Miles away however, can’t see myself building another layout for at least 10 years.  

[Tony Wright]

Just now, Jesse Sim said:

I don’t have that book no, I think I know the shot you’re talking about. It’s in the blue book of the GN mainline one, can’t remember the name….

 

It’s either going to be Welwyn North or Essendine….. the latter more then likely as I have a nice track plan already from you. Miles away however, can’t see myself building another layout for at least 10 years.  

I'll get you a copy, Jesse,

 

FOC, naturally (the usual abuse of privilege!). 

 

Essendine? By the way, the trackplan was by Ian Wilson, via me. 

 

Essendine was the original plan when Ian and I decided to 'build a layout together' when Mo and I moved over to Lincolnshire. However, no matter how hard he tried, with a 'footprint' of 32' x 12' to work with, to go on/off-scene at one end or the other, required visible right-angle curves. Not so much a problem with regard to the Bourne or Stamford branches respectively, but the ECML (along its fastest bit) going round a tight curve? Which is why Little Bytham was chosen to build. 

 

My views are well-known on this - visible tight curves ruin realism on main line depictions.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[PMP]

33 minutes ago, Chamby said:

 

It feels wrong when the person claiming ownership has simply acquired the images from somewhere else, for the purpose of making money.  They have had no contribution whatsoever into the image’s creation, it is seen by them as an investment and the use of copyright is purely for financial gain from someone else’s work.  

snip 

 

Note:  I refer specifically to items of purely photographic record here, as distinct from images that were originally created to be a work of art.

But that’s how photo libraries work, and always have done. Without people wanting to run places like Transport Treasury etc, picture collections can end up in the tip, or junk shops etc etc. And it goes without saying there are costs to running and administering those libraries. 

Here’s a ‘record’ shot. It’s a ‘newsworthy’ image, if people want to use it why shouldn’t I get paid for it? I had to travel 120 miles to take it. (It’s actually first days of Azuma service, and I have far better images of them) Just because I put it online, doesn’t make it free, or reduce any copyright issues.

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by PMP
Auto junk

[FarrMan]

17 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

And further still...........

 

 

 

Stoke Summit in OO.

 

 

 

Grantham in OO.

 

 

 

Gamston Bank in OO.

 

 

 

And Retford in EM.

 

I know of at least two models of Bawtry under construction, and then there's Jess Sim's Woolmer Green (which I'd like to take pictures next time I'm 'down under').

 

I've also taken pictures of Otterington, and Morpeth layouts, plus Princes Street Gardens, not to mention subjects on the Waverley route or on the Aberdeen road.  

 

Are there more? 

 

Can anyone else take us through such a 'model journey' along the WCML (I've photographed models of Rugby, Preston, Clifton and Lowther, Oxenholme, Shap and Carlisle, but that's all), the Western main lines to the West Midlands, to the SW, or the SR main line to the SW? I'm struggling to find model images of those other than Acton Main Line or Basingstoke (it doesn't mean I'm partisan, either, though I might have forgotten). 

 

May we see images of the other trunk routes in model form from other photographers, please? 

 

 

I have a model of Severn Tunnel junction. unfortunately it only exists in my mind at present - hence no photos!

 

Lloyd

[cctransuk]

11 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Wow, this thread has become mean-spirited pretty quickly.

 

Think I'll give RMWeb a break for a while lest I say something I regret.  There are a few people who should already feel that way.

 

Not mean-spirited in any way at all - merely a request for Rob to do as most of us do, and open his own thread in which to display his work.

 

What is unreasonable about that? I await your answers with interest!

 

CJI.

[Bernard Lamb]

8 hours ago, PMP said:

I used to do part time freelance photography work, and can see exactly the point regarding unauthorised use. As a freelancer I bought ‘pro’ equipment and used it to take images. But there’s additional costs too. If I went to an event, I’d be paying travel etc to get there. If I took a saleable image, why shouldn’t I as ‘author’ be able to make as much hay as I can from it while the sun shines, after all I’ve put money down to ‘provide’ that image. If the image is used by other people to further their own aims, be that commercial or private, the author should have the right to determine where it’s used, and if they get paid for it. 
It has actually happened to me in a model railway context. A picture of my layout was used to advertise a show, in a magazine. My layout wasn’t even going  to be at the show. The copyright watermark had been ‘cut off’ the bottom. So an organisation was happy to put out a misleading advert using imagery they hadn’t asked to use, let alone paid for. Allegedly found on a search on Google, a result I couldn’t replicate. However read Google t&c’s and they explain just because you find an image with their software, doesn’t give you the right to use it.

 

So I definitely get where the ‘image police’ are coming from. In some cases that persons living (the image owner), is being materially affected. 

I post the odd photograph on the forum. For some strange reason people seem to like them so I will carry on doing so. None of these have any monetary value to me. However I do take photographs and carry out research that I consider to be of value. You can find this work in some very obscure books. There was a book published on the Waverley route around 10 years ago and there was a long thread on the forum about the line and the book at the time. When the odd post was published that contained utter nonsense I was itching to correct it having read and contributed to the yet unpublished volume. 

About 30 years ago when I was involved in commercial photography. Work did get stolen from time to time. One day a very well known person involved in motor sport died suddenly. A local reporter paid a visit to the family and picked up several photographs including some wedding photographs. The company that I was involved with had taken these and held the copyright. The reporter passed them on the the national press and the story with some of the photographs was used by them. We checked the going rate and submitted invoices. They all paid in full almost immediately. One was for a considerable amount of money. It is always worth following up on the use of material that is yours and in which you have invested a considerable amount of cash. Most reputable companies will honour the law. Although in these internet times I imagine that there are far more people who do not know or do not care.

Bernard

[Chamby]

4 minutes ago, PMP said:

But that’s how photo libraries work, and always have done. Without people wanting to run places like Transport Treasury etc, picture collections can end up in the tip, or junk shops etc etc.

Here’s a ‘record’ shot. It’s a ‘newsworthy’ image, if people want to use it why shouldn’t I get paid for it? I had to travel 120 miles to take it. (It’s actually first days of Azuma service, and I have far better images of them) Just because I put it online, doesn’t make it free, or reduce any copyright issues.

 

 

You missed my point, PMP.  I have no problem with what you describe above. The point I was making is that, if you had opportunistically acquired that image from someone else, perhaps after their death, you weren’t the one who had travelled 120 miles to take it etc, etc, and the ethics become different.

 

I wonder then, what those who have built up a significant photographic record might want to happen to their work after their death... would they prefer it to become a part of a free, publicly available archive, or are they happy if someone they have never known acquires the images, claims copyright and starts charging others for accessing them?