Wright writes.....

[maico]

29 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

 

2. My 25mm lens has an angle of view equivalent to a full-frame "standard" lens but the DoF characteristics of a cropped image taken on a full-frame wide-angle.

 

John

 

You mean equivalent field of view. The angle of view is the fixed property of the optic. A focal length of 25mm is the same regardless of the size of the recording medium behind it. 

[Iain.d]

Like many modellers, I often have too much on the go at any one time. That said, for me it prevents me getting bored as the variety of tasks provides the opportunity to do something different each time I have the time to model.

 

This last week has seen some heavy sessions with the soldering iron as I have three brass kits on the go. The first is this oldish Pocket Money Kits (maybe Connoisseur Models) S&DJR 6-wheel 4 Compartment Luggage Composite. I acquired it quite recently from the family of a modeler who is no longer in a position to complete it himself. There were/are a few items missing such as buffers, W irons, axleboxes and a roof so I bought some bits and pieces from Wizard Models, less the roof which I’ll do from brass or plastic sheet. Other bits will come from the spares box.

 

 

I’ve formed the tumblehome, added the door hinges and door droplights and end steps. I haven’t added the vents above the doors as I think it will be better to do this after its painted. The etches are lovely and the brass cleaned up nicely with a toothbrush and some Jif.

 

 

Next is this (I think) older Mallard Models LBSCR Balloon Composite; the kit was incomplete when I received it, the biggest problem being there were no ends. Dave at Roxey Mouldings kindly provided me a suitable end drawing, so I cut and finished two pieces of .5mm brass sheet to the correct profile…

 

 

…to which I then added thin brass strip, to represent the beading (it looks much neater ‘in the flesh’ than the image below portrays) and drilled holes for future detailing. I don’t have any spare brass that would be suitable for the end steps, so these will likely be made from plastic ‘L’ section and added at the end.  I also made up the bogies (Roxey), formed the carriage side tumblehome and added the door vents and droplights.

 

 

The above composites were often paired with a Driver Third which is the third kit on the go. This is a Roxey Moulding one, I’m not really sure what caused me to purchase it as it doesn’t fit in with my intended location or era. I haven’t decided how it’ll be finished, it might be SR olive, malachite or even SDJR blue(!) who knows, I’ll see how the mood takes me when I get to that point.

 

 

It’s at about the same stage as the other two; tumblehome formed, droplights and passenger doors added and ends all prepared. It has been a standard build so far. I do like the ‘daintiness’ of Roxey kits and yet the robustness as they go together. I don’t have any plan or pictures of the interior layout, so any advice, particularly in relation to the partitions and seat orientation and placement, would be gratefully received.

 

If time allows this week I will try and get them soldered up as bodies and work on the S&DJR carriage's running gear.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

 

P.S. For those with a photography interest: Images taken with a tripod mounted Pentax K-3 w/Pentax 16-50mm/2.8 @f16, ISO 100, processed in Photoshop.

Edited April 14 by Iain.d
Spelling

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, maico said:

 

On my screen Tony, the area in focus has more resolution in the image shot at F8.

 

Having spent a lifetime working in the film industry behind the camera I've got a pretty good eye!

Good morning,

 

I concede to your expertise, and I think I know what you're getting at. However, the difference is slight, and more than made up for by the lower picture being of far greater use because it's all in focus. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[dibateg]

I'm reworking a second hand J39 to become 64747, and did the usual search on the number and shed allocations etc. The one thing missing from my doner engine was the vacuum tank on the tender, so I set about getting one. Having posted my work on WT, I was contacted by another WT member also building 64747 in 4mm scale, to tell me that engine did not have a vac tank - or a pick up dome for that matter. 

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/190924022@N03/51401740566

 

Now, I thought that all J39s had a vac tank.... apparently not so! An edict was issued in 1946 that various freight classes including J39s, should have the water pick up gear removed at works visits. On examining Yeadons, 64747 had several General's in the early 1950's, so it's not unreasonable to assume that the gear was removed during that period. With my layout period of '59 - '62, I needed to do something. So I set to with a hot iron from the inside and dropped out the existing filler and dome. Then made up a new blanking plate for the dome space and I had in stock an ROD tender type filler that looked more like the one in the Flickr photo. It does look rather empty on that rear platform now... although I have added th elifting links since.

 

As loco builders, we enjoy our engine picking... Even the tools boxes were wrong, they didn't look anything like the group standard ones.

 

I only mention it, as when I did a Google image search on 64747, a picture of one on Little Bytham  came up..... and I'm sure it had a vac tank... probably a loco I built years ago!

 

Regards

Tony

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, dibateg said:

I'm reworking a second hand J39 to become 64747, and did the usual search on the number and shed allocations etc. The one thing missing from my doner engine was the vacuum tank on the tender, so I set about getting one. Having posted my work on WT, I was contacted by another WT member also building 64747 in 4mm scale, to tell me that engine did not have a vac tank - or a pick up dome for that matter. 

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/190924022@N03/51401740566

 

Now, I thought that all J39s had a vac tank.... apparently not so! An edict was issued in 1946 that various freight classes including J39s, should have the water pick up gear removed at works visits. On examining Yeadons, 64747 had several General's in the early 1950's, so it's not unreasonable to assume that the gear was removed during that period. With my layout period of '59 - '62, I needed to do something. So I set to with a hot iron from the inside and dropped out the existing filler and dome. Then made up a new blanking plate for the dome space and I had in stock an ROD tender type filler that looked more like the one in the Flickr photo. It does look rather empty on that rear platform now... although I have added th elifting links since.

 

As loco builders, we enjoy our engine picking... Even the tools boxes were wrong, they didn't look anything like the group standard ones.

 

I only mention it, as when I did a Google image search on 64747, a picture of one on Little Bytham  came up..... and I'm sure it had a vac tank... probably a loco I built years ago!

 

Regards

Tony

Good morning Tony,

 

I think this is the one...........

 

 

 

 

Ex-Charwelton, it definitely has a vac' tank (which is staying). 

 

I believe it was built for the late Stephen Gradidge by Alan Hammet, originally supplied in LNER condition. I also believe you acquired it, and repainted/weathered it into BR condition - as is seen above.

 

It's a really lovely loco in all departments (the only thing I've done is to add the lubricator drive). It's a privilege now to own it. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[dibateg]

Yes - thats the one! It was a Proscale model built by Allen for Stephen Gradidge in late LNER livery. I acquired it from Stephen's estate after he passed away. I met Stephen a few times - he was an out and out GC enthusiast, a very nice chap. If I recall, he passed away on the day of his retirement. So that would have been 35 years ago or more? In those days of course there wasn't the proliferation of information on line that we have now. So it was reworked with the information we had at the time. I think it's important to remember a model's history and the memories that it carries.

I do like to see previously owned models going on to have another life, thats always gratifying.

 

Best Regards

Tony

 

 

[maico]

20 hours ago, Jamiel said:

Interestingly one of the characteristics of films/movies, and especially wide screen images is the amount of distortion giving ‘character’ to the look.

Lens aberration, the splitting of colours into a prism effect, by the edges of the lens gives the edges of films a look that helps make the centre of the image more attractive and guide the viewer to focus on that space. Many lenses only have a limited central area in focus as well.

Using anamorphic lenses also accentuates this, and if you watch any JJ Abrahams films (not something I would personally recommend!) additional lens flares are often added in post-production to create a ‘more filmic look’.

Some digital film cameras offer a cropped view, just taking the part of the image in the centre, with less distortion, or it can be done is post production as Tony has above.

There is an argument between sharper being better but lacking character, and shots with character but lacking detail. This also mirrors the differences in choices made between still and moving image photography.

Exposure on a moving image and the ‘lens angle’ (time the footage is exposed) is also a great difference between still and moving image, too much detail is uncomfortable on the eye, Steven Spielberg used this to make sequences in ‘Saving Private Ryan’ visually hard as well as the horrific acts being depicted.

Depth of focus also has very different aims in films, often there is a small depth of focus again to highlight where the director wants you to look, but still photography often has a deep focus allowing a lot of detail to be looked at. I would suspect that to mimic a small depth of focus for taking photographs of model railways in a filmic manner you would have to use a macro lens.

Personally, I prefer the wide shots without a crop as it loses the character of the lens, but that is probably because I am used to viewing moving images a great deal.

A lot of the choice is do you want to document as much as possible on a model, or to try and reproduce how the model would look if it were a photograph of the real thing. That might lead to a lot of photographs being made black and white and with grain (or noise as photoshop calls it).

As an aside, a question that is often asked by cinematographers at the start of a film is what lenses would the visual effects (VFX) department like to use? VFX usually reply Sony Spherical lenses, very accurate very little distortion and without character (very easy to use in post-production) and then the cinematographer will suggest 1960s hand ground anamorphic Cooks lenses. The VFX department then conceded the Cooks lenses look far better and ask to shoot lens charts so that the distortion can be reproduced in post.

I think the point I am trying to make is that sharper is not always better and sometimes you want to create a shot that is more about character. Very useful when reproducing a period look, but not very useful when documenting a how much work has gone into making a fantastic layout.

 

When I was focus puller you had to be careful with older Cooke primes. Some project a pronounced curved plane of focus. Focus in the middle and the edges were out and vice versa. Zeiss are flat field.

In my time in the industry I can't recall any Sony lenses. It was Zeiss, Panavision Primo, Leica, Cooke zooms, and the odd Angénieux zoom and Canon superspeed primes. Long lens would be converted Canon still lenses.

Edited April 14 by maico

[MJI]

Apart from domestic video, I do not know of any Sony lenses.

 

My HDV is Carl Zeiss vario sonnar.

 

The 4000P was Sony branded.

 

Not sure where I put it as the tube has worn out.

 

The recorder still works. 42 years old design.

[Jamiel]

2 hours ago, maico said:

 

When I was focus puller you had to be careful with older Cooke primes. Some project a pronounced curved plane of focus. Focus in the middle and the edges were out and vice versa. Zeiss are flat field.

In my time in the industry I can't recall any Sony lenses. It was Zeiss, Panavision Primo, Leica, Cooke zooms, and the odd Angénieux zoom and Canon superspeed primes. Long lens would be converted Canon still lenses.

Sony lenses have no character and are only good for technical photography, hence VFX supervisors liking them, and cinematographers not. I have only ever seen Sony lenses used for green screen shots or to get VFX elements.

The list you give is very accurate, Cookes have lots of issues but lots of charter, Zeiss are lovely as are Panavision. I did see a shot done with a Cooke anamorphic of a pans past Dutch houses, and it looked like an accordion, the inaccuracies in the lenses were too much for the shot, but the budget didn't reach to having alternate lenses for shots like that, and to be honest the film was quite dreadful anyway. Great camera crew though, and nice art department.

[Tony Wright]

Pleased to report that the Gibson Stanier Mogul has now sold.

 

Just two to go!

[Tony Wright]

As part of my series of articles for BRM on 'budget modelling', I've just completed fiddling with an old Palitoy/Mainline BR Standard 4 4-6-0 75XXX.

 

 

 

Considering the initial outlay was merely £5.00, and it still runs................. Not bad?

 

 

[MJI]

26 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

As part of my series of articles for BRM on 'budget modelling', I've just completed fiddling with an old Palitoy/Mainline BR Standard 4 4-6-0 75XXX.

 

 

 

Considering the initial outlay was merely £5.00, and it still runs................. Not bad?

 

 

 

The wheels warped on my Bachmann version, I do need to get the spares for it.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, MJI said:

 

The wheels warped on my Bachmann version, I do need to get the spares for it.

Good afternoon Martin,

 

 

This one has all the 'attributes' of the original split-chassis 'nastiness' (here I am weathering the motion).

 

After I'd cleaned the crud of decades off the wheels, it ran, but with all the quietness of a chain saw! A drop of oil quietened it to a pitch not damaging to one's hearing, then the quartering went on the rear axle under load. A bead of superglue on the inner plastic muff's end seemed to work, but this type of thing is all too common with this awful mechanism - a split-chassis which literally splits! Bachmann perpetuated this nonsense when it took over the range (the split-chassis B1s and V2s being particularly notorious in my experience). 

 

So, the question must be asked, why did I bother? Because it shows that with a bit of perseverance, something really cheap can be sort of 'resurrected'. Granted, it'll never be as quiet as anything produced today RTR (though it's on a par with some kit-built locos I've had through my hands), but it will run.

 

Years ago, there were two exhibition layouts where locos using this type of mechanism ran. I think one represented Marsden and another a viaduct on the Lancs/Yorks border. Entering the show, one knew immediately if those layouts were present, especially if a train were double-headed! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Northmoor]

47 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

Mainline 75001 was I think, my first "really good" model loco (as opposed to Hornby train set locos of the era).  I don't care that the current Bachmann/Hornby/whoever's model is superior, I will never part with my 75001, although it hasn't been run for years I will always treasure it.  It's worth reminding ourselves that the model was released about 45 years ago. 

 

Mainline and Airfix really did bring Hornby kicking and screaming into the 1980s.  Yes, the mechanism design turned out to be a poor choice in the long term, but everything about the proportions of body and tender on the Standard 4 look excellent to me.

[Mike 84C]

I always struggle to get my head around extra vac; reservoirs, extra tanks full of ??  nothing!!   yes I do understand the concept but still !!

[Captain Kernow]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

As part of my series of articles for BRM on 'budget modelling', I've just completed fiddling with an old Palitoy/Mainline BR Standard 4 4-6-0 75XXX.

 

Considering the initial outlay was merely £5.00, and it still runs................. Not bad?

What an excellent job, Tony. A loco like that for £5.00? Wonderful!

 

I bought one of these back when they first came out. I had no where to run it for many, many years, so it only got a little test running now and then.

 

When wanted to use it on my S&D layout 'Engine Wood', I found that the wheels were no longer retained on the axles, the usual Mainline split chassis problem.

 

My solution was to put a Comet chassis under the body and apply some weathering. Should I start exhibiting my remaining S&D layout again, the Standard 4 still remains in 'front line service'.

 

75023 was a Templecombe loco for a while in the early 1960s. Here it is on 'Engine Wood':

 

And on 'Bleakhouse Road':

 

[lezz01]

Peters' spares do replacement axle centres for that type of split axle loco. There are EM gauge options on eBay as well.

Regards Lez. 

[polybear]

@Tim Dubya posted this yesterday in the Small Suppliers Section - I thought it may be of interest to Sir and the Class here....

 

(click on the photo to bring the full story up)

 

 

HTH - and many thanks to Tim.

Brian

 

 

Edited April 15 by polybear

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

What an excellent job, Tony. A loco like that for £5.00? Wonderful!

 

I bought one of these back when they first came out. I had no where to run it for many, many years, so it only got a little test running now and then.

 

When wanted to use it on my S&D layout 'Engine Wood', I found that the wheels were no longer retained on the axles, the usual Mainline split chassis problem.

 

My solution was to put a Comet chassis under the body and apply some weathering. Should I start exhibiting my remaining S&D layout again, the Standard 4 still remains in 'front line service'.

 

75023 was a Templecombe loco for a while in the early 1960s. Here it is on 'Engine Wood':

 

And on 'Bleakhouse Road':

 

Thanks Captain,

 

The model had been previously weathered by its (original?) owner, and I, using prototype photos for reference, added to it (the weeping from the regulator gland is very common on these locos, as are brown deposits around the smokebox). 

 

If I had a use for it, I'd definitely build a replacement Comet chassis, but that would be way beyond the brief.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

I've been fascinated by the many learned comments of late regarding various lenses and their attributes. 

 

Thank you for all of them, and if you'd like to make some more.....................

 

This evening, I've tried a few shots using the 24mm Nikon lens on the front of the Nikon Df, with these results...........

 

 

 

Class A4 60010 DOMINION OF CANADA (Pro-Scale/Wright/Rathbone) rushes through Bytham on the morning fast Newcastle (Goddard/Houlden/Wright).

 

Both shots have had a little cropping. In the shot above, the lamp standard is out of focus, as is the nearer end of the BCK. Neither of these bother me; the eye is invited to look beyond.

 

Two more, though with no manipulation or cropping.............

 

 

 

In both these I've had the camera further away from the principal subject matter in order to show how wide Little Bytham is (the 24mm lens being ideal for this). Layouts are usually 'measured' in length, but width (for accuracy) is just as important in my view, especially if an actual prototype is modelled. 

 

At least some foreground cropping will be necessary in the two shots above. 

 

 

More indication of Bytham's width is seen here as Class A2/2 60501 COCK O' THE NORTH (DJH/scratch/Wright/Rathbone) heads the morning York/Hull express (Wright). Some foreground cropping has taken place, and a little to the left. 

 

In this sort of view, I place the camera about a foot from the front of the loco, with the focus set to two and a half feet, leaving F.22 to give me the necessary depth of field. 

 

 

In this view, I'm a bit nearer, with the focus set to one foot, meaning the background loses some focus, but I don't think that matters. The schoolboy trainspotters are just about enough in focus, and the B1 (Bachmann/Comet/Wright) hauling a Kings Cross Grantham express (Geary/Wright) certainly is; sharp enough to reveal its leaning-back cab (occasionally prototypical). 

 

Finally....................

 

 

 

Two shots of B12/3 61553 (Coopercraft/Wright) leaving Little Bytham with a Peterborough-Grantham 'Parly' (Geary/Wright).

 

Some foreground cropping has been necessary, but the full width is shown. 

 

The 24mm Nikon lens isn't so suitable if a close-up of a loco is required, but for 'layout' shots, I think it's excellent. Like all Nikon lenses, it's incredibly sharp. 

 

 

Edited April 15 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Barclay]

These excellent shots really do show that there is simply no need to mess about with focus stacking to make an image look good. Even the f22 on my old Nikon D200 will give very good depth of field, on my admittedly rather smaller layout, which is likely to be better than anything I could have taken if I'd really been there in the 1940's. Some of the photo's in the magazines do look rather over-processed and over-coloured, and I prefer the more natural look I have to say!

[jwealleans]

Morning Tony,

 

I thought you might like a look at this, which I acquired last week on Ebay.   I'm just a sucker for a C1, I suppose.   I thought it looked good enough to be worth finishing off and having it in my hands confirmed that impression.   I have no idea how old it is or who made it, though I don't think it's recent.

 

 

I take my hat off to those who can scratchbuild to this standard.     It ran surprisingly well, though it'll need a modern mechanism fitting.  I wondered whether the mech might give an idea as to it's age?   I've never seen one like this before and I'd have suggested it was homebrewed except that it has Romford and a number stamped into the brass frame.

 

 

 

[Barclay]

Somewhere or other Iain Rice gave information on how to age these old Romford motors based on their serial number, but I can't remember where! This old scratchbuilt Kitson Saddle tank I picked up some years ago has a similar motor, albeit without a number, and I, too, would love to know more about it.

 

[TrevorP1]

3 hours ago, Barclay said:

Some of the photo's in the magazines do look rather over-processed and over-coloured, and I prefer the more natural look I have to say!

I’m immediately thinking of the average TV add and some of the ‘reality’ shows (in which I have no interest whatsoever!). Has society become used to garish artificial colours?

 

I love bright colours and wish I had the nerve to dress like Michael Portillo but I find this lurid artificial reality quite awful.

[Hroth]

@Tony Wright  Arty types refer to lenses as having "Excellent bokeh", though that means that the images are fuzzy around the edges. Sometimes it seems that superlative sharpness is a fault...