Woodcock29 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Hi Tony Thanks for your response to my email about the D49. I could have made some of what I said a bit clearer. I was aware that the water pickups on the GC tenders were not removed specifically at transfer to D49s. I am as certain as Willie Yeadon's records that no D49 was paired with a self trimming tender. I perused Willie Yeadon's Tender Appendix prior to my previous post to confirm my understanding of the situation. It appears that the self trimming tenders were only ever paired with D11s, B3s and B7s. You are absolutely correct about GC tenders being a minefield but at least it has been covered in Yeadon's register. It is a pity equivalent data has not been published for the GN tenders as that is a similar minefield for modellers in my view. I quite enjoy the research required to ensure that as far as possible I attach the correct tenders to my locos, mind you I know I have got some wrong in the past. I have recently finished modifying 2 Bachmann J11s. On one I fitted a GC chimney and dome and to both I modified the tenders to represent 3250 gallon tenders which most of the J11s ended up with. I used spare Bachmann O4 tender bodies that I had and started by cutting the footplate away from the base of the tank and then removed 1.5-2mm from the base of the tender body. I didn't worry about reducing the width of the tender bodies as I considered the most obvious difference was the height. I also removed the round water filler and rear coal plate and fitted Graeme King's resin combined water filler / water pickup boxes. I also removed the coping plates and fitted spare Millholme etched GC coal rails and overlaid these on the outside with thin plastic card to represent coal rails that had been plated over. I fitted a 'ships wheel' water pickup operating wheel to the top front of each tender. This was a Gibson fitting which is not really correct as it has 8 spokes instead of 6, but is the best I have been able to find - Brassmasters do an etched one on a brake wheel etch but it is about 30% too big). The moulded plastic wheel that Bachmann have made for their D11/1 tender is excellent - if only I could obtain 20 of those! I fitted the J11 tender chassis to these bodies (I had only been able to obtain the O4 tender bodies - they came without chassis) but then the J11 chassis are far superior to the earlier ones made for the O4 as the brakes are now in line and they come ready fitted with tender pickups which I like. Note the ships wheels fitted to the Bachmann LNER J11 tenders are actually wrong as they have 8 spokes, not 6 - makes me think that during the development of the model they might have studied a Gibson kit built example? It was necessary to enlarge the 4 screw holes in the chassis as they do not align perfectly with the O4 tender top. Small washers need to be fitted so the screws don't simply go through the enlarged holes. Both J11s were fitted with replacement vacuum pipes at the front as the ones supplied by Bachmann are too thin. A repaint by airbrush with 'killed' black (black with about 25-30% brown added), lettering and numbering and finally a spray with satin varnish. Eventually they'll get weathered. An article on my conversions was published last year in the GCRS journal Forward. You may well ask why I didn't simply modify the J11 tender bodies - they are too good to cut up! I'll use these to attach to a B8 (to be built using custom etches I have had done here in SA for the chassis, footplate, splashers and cab to be combined with a salvaged Ks B2 boiler from a badly built B2 that I got for a song) and B9 (using Judith Edge etches which will be combined with a salvaged Millholme B5 boiler from the same source as the B2). In my view the Hornby O1 tender is the best of the RTR GC tenders but I couldn't get any spare ones. They are finer in detail and also have the brakes in line with the wheels (well for 16.5mm gauge modellers they do!) Also they are of the ROD type like the Bachmann O4 tender which only have the small round water filler and the rear coal plate set well back. What I'm not clear about is whether any of the GC tenders that had water pickup removed were completed in this form or whether they just had the side section of the water \filler/pickup box removed? I tried to upload photos of the J11s but couldn't seem to achieve this - not sure what went wrong? Tony I really liked the photos of your storage tracks as these are an important part of any layout and we seldom see photos of these. I note you have the elevated platforms for storing spare locos like I saw when I visited Gilbert Barnatt in 2013. Regards Andrew 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Tony, My main modelling thrust is a US Interurban prototype, the Pacific Electric, in HO scale, but working to the almost accurate P:87 standards. We of course share the same 16.5 mm gauge, and if I had your wonderful collection of UK models and your layout, I wouldn't want to change a thing!. It's just such a beautifully coherent whole. And I'm pragmatic about being able to take advantage of some of the quite amazing RTR models that have appeared of late. However, the reason I personally don't want to stick with the mainstream HO track standards in my own case has to do with the visual effect of a great deal of street running, which you generally don't have to deal with in UK BR modelling. While the mainstream HO and similar 00 standards look acceptable on normal railway PROW, the required flangeway width when using double guard rail for paved over street track, looks outrageously wide. And just about the only way to overcome that is to go to the Proto:87 standards for the "girder rail" used in most street track. It's not the usual P4 motivated case of being fussy about "fat" wheels, but the very obvious out of scale appearance of modelled streets. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAL 'O THE WYND Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 (Deep breath) As an out-of-the-box beginner who is too close to his seventieth year for comfort, modelling north of the Tyne as I am, I must have a J27. With around 30 at North Blyth and 21 at *Percy Main, (plus loads of 'em everywhere else) the J39s I'm employing are just plain wrong! Advice, administered with almost clinical care, will be gratefully received, Hal. *Was Percy Main unique in having just the one type of loco throughout the BR period? PS: And I have to be honest, there's a strong possibility that whatever I purchase might - after a short period of abuse - lie in a corner of my bench whilst OTB A1s chase Deltics around my toy-train oval. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 My old ex-GER Liverpool St. to Chingford (and a few other s) route was exclusively N7's with the odd L1 for some special trips. But I don't think there was ever a RTR N7 made. Which is strange since the N2's were done for so long. 0-6-2's are quite rare in RTR circles. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I have a feeling in my water you will see your J27, however, as my crystal balls were left hanging loose after Hornby's announcements, feel free to regard this 70+ persons rambling as another cock up..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAL 'O THE WYND Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I have a feeling in my water you will see your J27, however, as my crystal balls were left hanging loose after Hornby's announcements, feel free to regard this 70+ persons rambling as another cock up..... - Hell's teeth! - I'm not even up to date with the OTB information I should be familiar with! lol Thanks Coach. Probably just as well. 'Truth is, I plan to do a bit of conversion stuff like the D49 featured earlier, then try some metal goods stock. I know that will be challenging enough in itself. I do have half-decent controllable soldering-iron, and I have modelled in other fields, so one step at a time. I'd hate to have a cardiac and for my wife to find me with a soldering-iron up my nose. (think of the bacon smell ) Hal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Cram Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 In the mean time your best option would be a Dave Alexander kit. I haven't built one myself but have seen them on a layout and they do look the part. The alternative of a Dave Bradwell may be a step too far as a beginner. It will be at least a couple of years before there is a RTR one even if Bachmann announce one in March. If not it could be even longer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
benachie Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Re Woodcock and Tony's discussions of D49 GCR tenders, if you put flickr 4600529829 into google search, the first entry gives a good photo of the rear of preserved "Morayshire" tender. Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAL 'O THE WYND Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Thanks, Paul. As it happens Dave Alexander lives near me. I could probably save on postage. (I was going to say "cash in hand" but that would be most inappropriate! ) Otherwise, at my time of life we are particularly fortunate regarding the quality of rtr. Most layouts are long term projects. My local shop "Rolling Stock N Shields" purchases layouts from dead peoples' families. Often it's junk but I find the battered Superquick and gaudily painted Airfix (not always Dapol) very sad. Mixed with more contemporary pieces you can almost age the layout's development like the rings on a tree... Not the best metaphor but it's past my bedtime Hal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 As someone who builds his own stock I don't find modelling in P4 any more difficult than OO except perhaps in the area of loco chassis. It would undoubtedly be quicker and easier to build rigid chassis than compensated/sprung. For me it is the overall look that persuaded me to model in P4 way back in 1976. I agree that SMP/hanbuilt points in OO do look much better and apart from the flangeways it is difficult to tell whether it is P4/EM or OO. It is only the wheels and the end on look of locos and rolling stock that give it away. Fortunately the NER period and area that I model only has one RTR model and therefore I do not have the anything to modify. As a consequence my locos for this period are kit built with the exception of the E1 which has a high level chassis under a cheaply acquired body. I do get more satisfaction from building things and seeing them run to just opening a box and putting it on the layout. I don't have the number of locos that you have or indeed the amount of rolling stock but what I do have is almost all my own work. I do have a loco bought off ebay that I didn't build but just finished. Thanks Paul, You're entirely right about the correct end-on look in P4 and the tight-perspective shots I take on Little Bytham always reveal the narrow gauge/thick treads of OO. But, I live with that and amongst us at least we have represented a fast main line. The point about the rolling stock on your layout being all your own work is very important in my opinion. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than seeing a loco I made hauling a train I made glide by without fuss or failure. Though not in response to your post, might I make one further comment about trying to get too much in on a layout? This is a personal point of view, though some see it as a criticism of others. This is not so; others have a right to please themselves. This afternoon I was browsing through The Power of the Austerities, by Gavin Morrison. On Page 42 there are two pictures of 'Dub Dees' passing through Little Bytham, one with the station still open. The site really spreads in both dimensions, with lots of open space. Not all the railway land is visible, and it really is big - 32' x 12' of model space to 'properly' represent it. To try to have squeezed it into a smaller space would not have worked. Not for me, anyway. I'll try and replicate the pictures and post them tomorrow. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
60526 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 You're right about the need for increasing the radii of the curves the nearer one gets to scale gauge - the erstwhile Dunwich (correct spelling?) converted to P4 proved that - but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'medium radius' curves. For the running lines, the tightest radii on Little Bytham are 2' 10" (the Up goods, out of sight), then increasing according to the track-spacing - Up lay-bye, Up fast, Down fast, Down slow, etc. Would they be described as 'medium'? I'd describe them as 'minimum' in OO to ensure consistently good running in my experience. Any less than that (other than in one or two sidings where stock is just stored) and you run into problems with larger locos involving cylinder drain pipes and front steps. As for Fordley Park, that's an interesting piece of pre-history now. I built many Jamieson loco kits for that because they were available and were suitable. My only RTR mods were Hornby-Dublo A4 bodies on scratch-built chassis towing Wills or K's tenders - ghastly things! I suppose I was using comparisons not Peco terms when describing the radii, but as a comparison you can easily get a OO 9F around a 2'-10" radius curve but I've not yet seen an exhibition P4 9F go below 6' radius, on the occasions that I have seen Blackgill I've not seen the 9F's go around a curve so can't comment on these. There is/was a BR(W) roundy P4 layout with a steam shed as the prominent feature, the 9F on here could only run on the outside track and one of guys showed us a trick of the trade where they move out the piston and slide bars to make more room to the wheels. I've also seem this in P87 and it certainly seems to make things easier to make. Fordley Park - having been overjoyed by the wonderful storyline in Eastenders tonight, it's been a wrench but I've had to go off to my modelling room to calm down and look up some modelling information and it just so happens that I have come across my copy of Model Railways November 1980 edition when a certain T Wright described the layout. Your 69806 seems to have been highly thought of at the time, "The A5 is from Craftsman, in our opinion the best loco kits (apart from somewhat flimsy chassis) made." This is 35 years ago. And further - in talking about the up Leeds-Kings Cross Express - "The express is Hornby Dublo (nice but due for replacement eventually) and its loco also from that wonderful source. It now boasts correct sized wheels, cartazzi trucks, hand rails and a modified Wills A4 tender. The basic mechanism / motor etc is still the same as it was when bought 20 years ago", It's great to look back at some of these articles. This extract is probably what the majority of non GW modellers though at the time, " Choice of layout is again governed by what else is built. One sees so many layouts at exhibitions and in the model press based on pre-nationalisation GWR etc". Move forward to 2015 and some are moaning about too many BR(E) layouts, but where are the large GW or BR(W) layouts? Another interesting point (excuse the pun) is that the layout was using 14.5mm b-b with 1.25 flangeways, straight track was SMP, points were copperclad construction. What else did the layout have - a Cornard B17, a Sutherland 3F Jinty, Wills A2, A3, 4F, J39, scatchbuilt A1/1, A2/2, A2/3, K1, Anbrico DMU, Jamieson V2. And there are numerous other locos J11, Jubilee, B1, Super D, Mickey Mouse, 2P, K3, Std4, D16/3 and Hornby class37. You've talked about your Jamieson V2 ventures, in looking back at a Frank Dyer article, not sure if it is about his original 1949 V2, but how have you done your washout plugs. He sculptured the shape of the plug out of the firebox? Mind you in another article it shown how he scratchbuilt a DMU out of sheet metal, where's my Bmann Craven unit, life is too easy! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodcock29 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Thanks Alan for your comment re Morayshire. Morayshire is certainly one of the D49s that received a GC tender. In fact I rode on the footplate of Morayshire at Bo'ness in 2008, or more correctly I rode on the footplate of the tender as the cab was rather congested. I have a similar photo of the tender as that in your reference. From studying Yeadon's Tender Appendix it is unclear which tender is now coupled to Morayshire - I believe it to be an ex ROD tender because of the small round water filler - but I may be wrong. Yeadon's Tender Register only seems to cover the ex GC tenders when they were first coupled to D49s not all subsequent changes that may have occurred. The register indicates the first ex GC tender coupled to Morayshire was from Q4 5071 and was with Morayshire from 2/6/41 to 6/46. But there is no record of what was coupled to Morayshire after that date. Possibly this question could have been solved if I had taken a photo of the front of the tender as this would have shown the tender number plate, assuming it was still in position on the front coal plate. I took photos of the coal space to show the fittings for fire iron holders and the backplate in the cab and the crew and just about everything else other than the front of the tender - isn't hindsight a wonderful thing! Once I can figure out how to attach photos I can add some of mine to show what I'm talking about! Andrew Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
benachie Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Andrew, The information in the Isinglass drawings is similarly incomplete post '46. ?Cowlairs record-keeping! Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium corneliuslundie Posted January 3, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 3, 2015 Did someone mention accurate ex GNR tenders? http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/94209-emily-laid-bare-a-stirling-effort/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Dread Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Just to throw in my two pence, here's a photo of said loco just after withdrawal. A small amount of the tender can be just seen. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted January 3, 2015 Author Share Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) I suppose I was using comparisons not Peco terms when describing the radii, but as a comparison you can easily get a OO 9F around a 2'-10" radius curve but I've not yet seen an exhibition P4 9F go below 6' radius, on the occasions that I have seen Blackgill I've not seen the 9F's go around a curve so can't comment on these. There is/was a BR(W) roundy P4 layout with a steam shed as the prominent feature, the 9F on here could only run on the outside track and one of guys showed us a trick of the trade where they move out the piston and slide bars to make more room to the wheels. I've also seem this in P87 and it certainly seems to make things easier to make. Fordley Park - having been overjoyed by the wonderful storyline in Eastenders tonight, it's been a wrench but I've had to go off to my modelling room to calm down and look up some modelling information and it just so happens that I have come across my copy of Model Railways November 1980 edition when a certain T Wright described the layout. Your 69806 seems to have been highly thought of at the time, "The A5 is from Craftsman, in our opinion the best loco kits (apart from somewhat flimsy chassis) made." This is 35 years ago. And further - in talking about the up Leeds-Kings Cross Express - "The express is Hornby Dublo (nice but due for replacement eventually) and its loco also from that wonderful source. It now boasts correct sized wheels, cartazzi trucks, hand rails and a modified Wills A4 tender. The basic mechanism / motor etc is still the same as it was when bought 20 years ago", It's great to look back at some of these articles. This extract is probably what the majority of non GW modellers though at the time, " Choice of layout is again governed by what else is built. One sees so many layouts at exhibitions and in the model press based on pre-nationalisation GWR etc". Move forward to 2015 and some are moaning about too many BR(E) layouts, but where are the large GW or BR(W) layouts? Another interesting point (excuse the pun) is that the layout was using 14.5mm b-b with 1.25 flangeways, straight track was SMP, points were copperclad construction. What else did the layout have - a Cornard B17, a Sutherland 3F Jinty, Wills A2, A3, 4F, J39, scatchbuilt A1/1, A2/2, A2/3, K1, Anbrico DMU, Jamieson V2. And there are numerous other locos J11, Jubilee, B1, Super D, Mickey Mouse, 2P, K3, Std4, D16/3 and Hornby class37. You've talked about your Jamieson V2 ventures, in looking back at a Frank Dyer article, not sure if it is about his original 1949 V2, but how have you done your washout plugs. He sculptured the shape of the plug out of the firebox? Mind you in another article it shown how he scratchbuilt a DMU out of sheet metal, where's my Bmann Craven unit, life is too easy! Thanks Charlie for reminding me. Was it really 35 years ago? I'd forgotten I'd re-wheeled the original Hornby-Dublo A4 chassis, and it wasn't long afterwards that I scratch-built new ones for those A4s. With memory jogged, I recall soon selling the re-wheeled chassis, then eventually sold the modified bodies. I retained at least one of the scratch-built chassis - it's still underneath my SILVER LINK, but the old-fashioned open-framed motor has long been replaced. Looking at some of those other locos on the list, I can't believe how poor many of them would look now alongside today's current RTR brilliance. With the exception of one of the V2s (not shown in the article), the hand-cut Jamieson A2/1 (wasn't that there?) and the B1, I no longer own any of the ER locos on that list, though I built every one. I also scratch-built the chassis for the Super D and the 2P, though the bodies were made by the late Pete Lander. The other locos listed were built by other WMRC members. Apart from some items of rolling stock, almost nothing was RTR. Compared to some of today's model railways one sees, Fordley Park wouldn't rate very highly. But, it was 'true' (if arcane) modelling as I see it, just about everything was made and we didn't pay other folk to do things for us (though history is full of chaps who did the latter). It worked really well, too. Perhaps it's the passage of time, but I honestly think I got much more fun out of my modelling then than I do now. V2 washout plugs? I have some ancient white metal castings which I fettle, fiddle with and fit. And swear as I'm doing it! Fordley Park's pictures were taken by the incomparable (in terms of his technical expertise) Brian Monaghan. He used a Linhof Technica (is that the right spelling?) plate camera, giving biting-sharp clarity. All the shots, though, were taken from a 'helicopter'. With model railway photography today, with the increase in folk modelling actual prototypes, there are more attempts to replicate actual pictures. Looking on this site, some work really well, others less so. Why less so? Because it's impossible (or I've found it so) to actually get any camera into exactly the same position the full-sized photographer would have been in. It's down to physics I think. Even compact cameras (which I don't use) are huge in comparison to any 4mm model and the optics don't scale. Perhaps the current (brilliant) exponents of the craft might like to put their point of view here - over to you Andy. Other prototype-based pictures often don't work (again, my opinion) because of too-tight bends or too much real-site compression, though some on Peterborough North within the confines of the station are like being in a time machine, they're so realistic. There's also the issue of what to do with the backgrounds. I mentioned two shots taken at Little Bytham on page 42 of Gavin Morrison's Power of the Austerities in a previous post. For obvious reasons, I can't post those images here but if any viewer has the book they might like to compare my efforts. My layout is set in high-summer, and Gavin's shot was taken in February, so there's a big difference already. Because the layout is about 16" short in scale (that loss being at the north end), then I cannot get the plain track in north of the nearest point). He must have been standing on the MR/M&GNR formation, so I just plonked the camera there and hoped for the best. Obviously, I've taken out the Glen Valley to the left in Photoshop. I made the loco, which is the same one in the prototype shot. Does the picture work? That's for others to decide, but it's the best I can do. The lower picture on page 42 shows an 'Austerity'-hauled weed-killing train at LB, but after the station had been closed and demolished. Since I don't have a weed-killing train, nor the same 'Austerity', and my station is still intact, this is the best I can manage. J. S. Hancock must have been standing on Marsh Bridge, so I put my camera on the model of it. Overall size constraints mean the background cannot possibly be captured. Edited January 3, 2015 by Tony Wright 13 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Andy Y Posted January 3, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 3, 2015 With model railway photography today, with the increase in folk modelling actual prototypes, there are more attempts to replicate actual pictures. Looking on this site, some work really well, others less so. Why less so? Because it's impossible (or I've found it so) to actually get any camera into exactly the same position the full-sized photographer would have been in. It's down to physics I think. Even compact cameras (which I don't use) are huge in comparison to any 4mm model and the optics don't scale. Perhaps the current (brilliant) exponents of the craft might like to put their point of view here - over to you Andy. Other prototype-based pictures often don't work (again, my opinion) because of too-tight bends or too much real-site compression, though some on Peterborough North within the confines of the station are like being in a time machine. There's also the issue of what to do with the backgrounds. It's theoretically possible but it's dependent on several factors. Firstly; can the viewpoint of the real photographer be replicated? In 4mm scale the chances are that it probably can't. Even with a high-end compact such as the Canon Gs the centre of the lens is around 28mm above the base of the camera so the position of the image taken is from a scale 7' high whereas the average photo would be taken from around 5'4" as the eye height of the average photographer; straightaway there's around a 25% discrepancy unless a lower viewpoint can be achieved. In 7mm this element becomes more achievable. Secondly, the lateral positioning is critical and any selective compression which may have been made in the model will have exaggerated impact when anyone tries to put any form of camera within the model. Again; possible in theory. I've tried a few attempts on Roy Jackson's splendid Retford as being a large enough model absolutely to scale but it's still near on impossible in practice. The best I have seen it done is by Chris Nevard with some images of Julian Birley's 'Evercreech' in Model Rail a few years back. Thirdly there's the issue of optical aspects with the model photographer needing to replicate the lens' focal length. Achieving the same effects of aperture may need us to go beyond the world of optics into software-based solutions. Thirdly; lighting. Try all you like but it'll be near impossible to take an image which accurately reflects the lighting of the original, especially sunlit shots where there's a rather large light source 93 million miles away giving parallel shadows. That part is 'challenging' to scale. It's fun to try though (yes the background's a con!). 24 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gr.king Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) Many of you will be familiar with the Gamston Bank layout, belonging to John Houlden, built by John and friends. Today it had rather an unusual look to it and I had cause to regret that the only camera I could throw at it was really meant for outdoor sports photography. With more time available I could have tried to catch some of the delightfully unusual vintage stock whilst on the better lit scenic sections of the layout. I'm afraid these very poor pictures are the best I could do. The owner of the stock WAS there with very much better cameras on hand, but I don't know whether we shall get to see his images. I do know that a certain very good photographer will be visiting tomorrow and we may well see some of his results, but they won't show this rolling stock. Pity...especially about that Stirling single. Edited January 3, 2015 by gr.king 17 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted January 3, 2015 Author Share Posted January 3, 2015 It's theoretically possible but it's dependent on several factors. Firstly; can the viewpoint of the real photographer be replicated? In 4mm scale the chances are that it probably can't. Even with a high-end compact such as the Canon Gs the centre of the lens is around 2mm above the base of the camera so the position of the image taken is from a scale 7' high whereas the average photo would be taken from around 5'4" as the eye height of the average photographer; straightaway there's around a 25% discrepancy unless a lower viewpoint can be achieved. In 7mm this element becomes more achievable. Secondly, the lateral positioning is critical and any selective compression which may have been made in the model will have exaggerated impact when anyone tries to put any form of camera within the model. Again; possible in theory. I've tried a few attempts on Roy Jackson's splendid Retford as being a large enough model absolutely to scale but it's still near on impossible in practice. The best I have seen it done is by Chris Nevard with some images of Julian Birley's 'Evercreech' in Model Rail a few years back. Thirdly there's the issue of optical aspects with the model photographer needing to replicate the lens' focal length. Achieving the same effects of aperture may need us to go beyond the world of optics into software-based solutions. Thirdly; lighting. Try all you like but it'll be near impossible to take an image which accurately reflects the lighting of the original, especially sunlit shots where there's a rather large light source 93 million miles away giving parallel shadows. That part is 'challenging' to scale. 6A.jpg 6test.jpg It's fun to try though (yes the background's a con!). Thanks Andy, I've qualified the comment about Peterborough North in my previous post in case of any ambiguity. It's interesting your point about lighting (don't you mean fourthly?) and the near impossibility of replicating real shadows exactly. Your shot on Retford's flat crossing of the duo of light engines is brilliant. As one who stood on the end of Platform 1 at the place from 1956-'63, it brings back so many memories. To light it like you have, which is photographically perfect, means the sun would have to be shining from the North East. Apart from the very early morning in mid-summer, would this be physically possible? The first shot in my previous post is taken looking due south. Yet I've illuminated the loco's smokebox door. Impossible in reality, but how far does one go? Or is expected to go? As going into the world of software solutions to achieve aperture effects (depth of field?) such is my Luddism that, even though you've explained things to me, I'll never master such mysteries. I think at F32, I just about get away with enough depth of field. What do you think in this regard, please, looking at the two previous shots? Meanwhile, you've taken the 'art' of model railway onto a level way beyond anything I might have achieved in the past. Great stuff! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGC Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 It's theoretically possible but it's dependent on several factors. Firstly; can the viewpoint of the real photographer be replicated? In 4mm scale the chances are that it probably can't. Even with a high-end compact such as the Canon Gs the centre of the lens is around 2mm above the base of the camera so the position of the image taken is from a scale 7' high whereas the average photo would be taken from around 5'4" as the eye height of the average photographer; straightaway there's around a 25% discrepancy unless a lower viewpoint can be achieved. In 7mm this element becomes more achievable. Secondly, the lateral positioning is critical and any selective compression which may have been made in the model will have exaggerated impact when anyone tries to put any form of camera within the model. Again; possible in theory. I've tried a few attempts on Roy Jackson's splendid Retford as being a large enough model absolutely to scale but it's still near on impossible in practice. The best I have seen it done is by Chris Nevard with some images of Julian Birley's 'Evercreech' in Model Rail a few years back. Thirdly there's the issue of optical aspects with the model photographer needing to replicate the lens' focal length. Achieving the same effects of aperture may need us to go beyond the world of optics into software-based solutions. Thirdly; lighting. Try all you like but it'll be near impossible to take an image which accurately reflects the lighting of the original, especially sunlit shots where there's a rather large light source 93 million miles away giving parallel shadows. That part is 'challenging' to scale. 6A.jpg 6test.jpg It's fun to try though (yes the background's a con!). How fascinating these two photographs are. There is, however, something, and I don't know what, that gives away the second picture as being the one of the model without needing to be told. I can't work out exactly what, but I think it's the perspective - could this be something to do with the relation of lens length of the camera prototype needing to be scaled down to be the equal on the model? Does that make sense? If so, does anyone have the answer? Brilliant effort though, Andy. Phil Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 but how far does one go? Or is expected to go? I guess the first duty of a layout photographer is to record the scenes for the entertainment or dissection of the reader; it only moves into pedantic territory when real-world environmental factors are considered although I always try to keep fake sky horizons at the same level as the model's horizon and I try to ensure the light is falling on any clouds in the background from the same general direction as the light in the model scene. I think at F32, I just about get away with enough depth of field. What do you think in this regard, please, looking at the two previous shots? They're superb shots Tony, taking the slightly elevated position allows excellent depth of field, something which would only be significantly compromised by dropping down to trackbed level. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
westerner Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 One aspect which always seems to me to be a problem when replicating a B&W image is the greys on the model photograph never seem quite right, it probably lacks the slight graininess of old photos. I think this is illustrated in Andy's excellent photo of Retford above. When I've tried to get the Barton Bradford effect it's that which always defeats me. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidw Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) Many of you will be familiar with the Gamston Bank layout, belonging to John Houlden, built by John and friends. Today it had rather an unusual look to it and I had cause to regret that the only camera I could throw at it was really meant for outdoor sports photography. With more time available I could have tried to catch some of the delightfully unusual vintage stock whilst on the better lit scenic sections of the layout. I'm afraid these very poor pictures are the best I could do. The owner of the stock WAS there with very much better cameras on hand, but I don't know whether we shall get to see his images. I do know that a certain very good photographer will be visiting tomorrow and we may well see some of his results, but they won't show this rolling stock. Pity...especially about that Stirling single. 101_0381.JPG101_0382.JPG101_0383.JPG101_0384.JPG101_0385.JPG101_0386.JPG Graeme, I thought you were showing pictures of the scenic section.... will Gamston be at any shows next year ? Edited January 3, 2015 by davidw Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gr.king Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Scenic stock certainly! As the question of what would be the first "off the shelf" models of Great Northern tenders was under discussion on here recently, this may be of interest to some: http://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2443&p=107035#p107035 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) Converting digital to black & white is the easy part. The next part is getting the image to replicate film stock. Images on paper were created in a darkroom and several factors came into play such as thin or over developed negatives, soft, medium and contrasty paper grades not to mention the original in-camera over or underexposure. When converting digital colour images to monochrome I usually find I have to reduce contrast as well. When doing comparison shots of real & model, I usually 'extend' the shot by using a wider angle focal setting than the real photo I am copying simply because of distance compression on the layout. But there are instances when a telephoto effect is required if one is wanting to create a wedge or impact shot such as Eric Treacy practiced. He used medium format in the main but his lens roughly equated to an 85mm on a 35mm camera. Even on a small digital compact with a f32 aperture, you are not going to get the depth of field seen on a real photo. A way around this is photo-stacking, which I seldom use because my lens is a crap optic and there is little to gain when shots are basically unsharp to begin with! Edited January 3, 2015 by coachmann 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now