Wright writes.....

[ERIC ALLTORQUE]

12 minutes ago, robmcg said:

Good evening Tony, or morning...

 

With the nature of scale modelling being forefront, and I did rather over-do my reaction to your invitation regarding 9F photos, here is an example of just how well Bachmann did with their 2006 version,  in this case a Modelzone limited edition, of the preserved Bluebell Railway 9F 92240 in weathered BR condition.

 

I photographed it in its normal condition then superimposed a photo of the wheels and motion and injector pipes over the relevant parts.

 

How hard it is to replicate railways in model form!  The textures of metal on prototypes will be forever and elusive effect!

 

 

Standard condition as supplied by Bachmann, detail pack parts added.

 

 

Wheels and motion from prototype, about 90 degrees rotated alas, but the comparison is interesting. What a challenge for modellers and manufacturers to achieve this 'look', for want of a better word.

 

I agree Tim does beautiful work on Gilbert's Peterborough North locomotive fleet.

Remember these best of all the steam locomotives sitting on the lineside wall at Leadgate while they passed hauling the iron ore to Consett steel works,you could look straight through under the boiler and frames.

[ScRSG]

On the subject of Nu-cast V2's, here are pictures off the latest one I have done, the unique (?) 60813,

 

 

 

From the photos of the new Bachman model, I think the Nu-cast one stands up pretty well and looks more "elegant".

 

Going back to a previous item on D49's and particularly Morayshires tender, I got one of my club colleagues to take a photo of the only plate on the tender, I don't know if it helps but here it is - 

 

 

Any help?

 

Chas

[Headstock]

3 hours ago, landscapes said:

Hi

 

There is nothing wrong or boring about RTR railway photography 

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, ScRSG said:

On the subject of Nu-cast V2's, here are pictures off the latest one I have done, the unique (?) 60813,

 

 

 

From the photos of the new Bachman model, I think the Nu-cast one stands up pretty well and looks more "elegant".

 

Going back to a previous item on D49's and particularly Morayshires tender, I got one of my club colleagues to take a photo of the only plate on the tender, I don't know if it helps but here it is - 

 

 

Any help?

 

Chas

 

 

Good day Chas,

 

I have a soft spot for the SEF V2, yours displays a great deal of craftsmanship and skill.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Headstock

[Craigw]

8 hours ago, robmcg said:

Good evening Tony, or morning...

 

 

 

 

 

Standard condition as supplied by Bachmann, detail pack parts added.

 

 

Wheels and motion from prototype, about 90 degrees rotated alas, but the comparison is interesting. What a challenge for modellers and manufacturers to achieve this 'look', for want of a better word.

 

I agree Tim does beautiful work on Gilbert's Peterborough North locomotive fleet.

 

What I think this composite photo shows is the oily sheen that is present on the real thing but absent from so much of the "custom" weathering work plus the lines showing that the rods were not rotated when using the airbrush (other pic which I deleted!)

 

Regards,

 

Craig W

[Woodcock29]

7 hours ago, ScRSG said:

Going back to a previous item on D49's and particularly Morayshires tender, I got one of my club colleagues to take a photo of the only plate on the tender, I don't know if it helps but here it is - 

 

 

Any help?

 

Chas

That appears to be a genuine GC tender number and according to Yeadon (Appendix 2 - Locomotive Tender Numbering) it was coupled to J11 5325 until 2/26. Then Q4s  6075 (4/26-1/29), 5058 (1/29-1/42). Then reconditioned 21/4-1/5/42 thence to Eastfield shed 13/5/42 and D49 2759  26/6/42-?/9/47 - end of the record In Yeadon. So it appears at some point in time it transferred to Morayshire.

Andrew

Edited February 20, 2022 by Woodcock29

[jwealleans]

Weren't the D49s stripped of their GS tenders in 1942 for some new build O2s?  Presumably the Q4 was withdrawn (or something else was) and so the tenders could be swapped around?

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Woodcock29 said:

That appears to be a genuine GC tender number and according to Yeadon (Appendix 2 - Locomotive Tender Numbering) it was coupled to J11 5325 until 2/26. Then Q4s  6075 (4/26-1/29), 5058 (1/29-1/42). Then reconditioned 21/4-1/5/42 thence to Eastfield shed 13/5/42 and D49 2759  26/6/42-?/9/47 - end of the record In Yeadon. So it appears at some point in time it transferred to Morayshire.

Andrew

 

Going back further, the GCR number would have been 1032, which would make it one of a batch built by Sharp Stewart for a Robinson 11B. From memory, they had 3250 Gallon tenders, built with two coal rails. A photo of 1031 of the same batch clearly shows it without a water scoop when new. I don't think they kept them on those locos very long and they were soon attached to water scoop fitted tenders of the 4000 Gallon variety. Being pedantic, 6032 is an LNER plate rather than a GCR one but that is an interesting revelation. What I don't know is if it may have been rebuilt at some time with a 4000 Gallon body, or if it is still a 3250 tank. It is hard to tell just by looking.

 

Edit to add that an 11B is an LNER D9 for those who only understand classes after 1923.

Edited February 20, 2022 by t-b-g
To add content

[landscapes]

7 hours ago, Headstock said:

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Hi

 

I enclose a photo from my Haymarket layout.

 

can I ask you in your opinion is this boring?

 

I do not have the skills as the likes of Tony and other modellers on this website to build locomotive kits, I am the first to admit that.

 

The two locomotives in this photo are both RTR models, but everything else you see including all structures and buildings I have scratch built from archive photographs, and to a point as well that includes the trackwork which is C&L Finescale and had to be made up.

 

Regards

 

David

[Tony Wright]

Good morning David,

 

Thanks for showing this.

 

If anyone finds your picture (and/or its subject matter) boring, may I suggest they look elsewhere than Wright writes?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

P.S. If you can build trackwork to that standard and structures to that standard, you'll build locos with ease. 

[Headstock]

20 minutes ago, landscapes said:

Hi

 

I enclose a photo from my Haymarket layout.

 

can I ask you in your opinion is this boring?

 

I do not have the skills as the likes of Tony and other modellers on this website to build locomotive kits, I am the first to admit that.

 

The two locomotives in this photo are both RTR models, but everything else you see including all structures and buildings I have scratch built from archive photographs, and to a point as well that includes the trackwork which is C&L Finescale and had to be made up.

 

Regards

 

David

 

Good morning David,

 

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

 

[landscapes]

3 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning David,

 

Thanks for showing this.

 

If anyone finds your picture (and/or its subject matter) boring, may I suggest they look elsewhere than Wright writes?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

P.S. If you can build trackwork to that standard and structures to that standard, you'll build locos with ease. 

Hi Tony

 

Good morning to you as well.

 

I apologise I do not want to get into discussions on different matters of opinion regarding RTR locomotives your thread is too good for that.

 

Thank you for your kind comments but I know my limitations and believe me when I say building metal locomotive kits and soldering is definitely not one of my strong points.

 

But I am more than happy to continue  admiring the work that you and other Railway Modellers on this website produce, building superb kit built model locomotives.

 

Regards

 

David

[Headstock]

18 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning David,

 

Thanks for showing this.

 

If anyone finds your picture (and/or its subject matter) boring, may I suggest they look elsewhere than Wright writes?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

P.S. If you can build trackwork to that standard and structures to that standard, you'll build locos with ease. 

 

Good morning Tony,

 

as you wish.

[landscapes]

Just now, Headstock said:

 

Good morning David,

 

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

 

Hi Headstock

 

Thank you,  I was only trying to make the point that in my option RTR models can still produce a nice photo.

 

Thank you for your kind reply.

 

Regards

 

David

[APOLLO]

Finescale Modelling ? Sometimes a Lump hammer, stone chisel and a stick or two of Dynamite is required when you model Colorado Railroads in O scale !!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brit15

[MarkC]

12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Mark,

 

I read somewhere that Newcastle School was approached to see if it would like its name on a V2. The headmaster refused!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

Good morning, Tony.

 

One wonders why ever not?

 

Kind regards,

Mark

[Tony Wright]

11 minutes ago, MarkC said:

Good morning, Tony.

 

One wonders why ever not?

 

Kind regards,

Mark

Good morning Mark,

 

I can't find where I read about the Newcastle School's headmaster refusing to sanction a V2 being named after his establishment, but the cause (from what I recall) was that he wouldn't want his school associated with a filthy steam locomotive (could this be because of Gateshead's chronic shortage of cleaners?). Of course, during the war, this would have been the case with most locomotives. A pity, because Durham's head and St. Peter's head clearly thought it was a fine association. 

 

No such problems seem to have been found with the naming of the SR Schools, where it was usual for the head boy of a school to name a locomotive after it, usually at the nearest station to the establishment. Thus started a proud association.

 

I've heard a story that one of the colonels of a regiment after which a Deltic was named wrote to BR in absolute disgust because his famous band of fighting men was 'dishonoured' by a link with such a filthy locomotive - Gateshead again?

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[MarkC]

2 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Mark,

 

I can't find where I read about the Newcastle School's headmaster refusing to sanction a V2 being named after his establishment, but the cause (from what I recall) was that he wouldn't want his school associated with a filthy steam locomotive (could this be because of Gateshead's chronic shortage of cleaners?). Of course, during the war, this would have been the case with most locomotives. A pity, because Durham's head and St. Peter's head clearly thought it was a fine association. 

 

No such problems seem to have been found with the naming of the SR Schools, where it was usual for the head boy of a school to name a locomotive after it, usually at the nearest station to the establishment. Thus started a proud association.

 

I've heard a story that one of the colonels of a regiment after which a Deltic was named wrote to BR in absolute disgust because his famous band of fighting men was 'dishonoured' by a link with such a filthy locomotive - Gateshead again?

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Good morning again, Tony

 

Gateshead did seem to have a bit of a reputation, didn't it? Right to the end of its (diesel) days...

 

As I recall, 60860 was indeed named by the School's Head Boy, and at Durham (Elvet) of all places too. Mind you, it wasn't the first  large locomotive to appear at that station - 10000, as 'Hush Hush', was displayed there once. Both locomotives must have made the bridge over the Wear creak a little! (And having walked along the remaining embankments approaching the site of the bridge, one wonders how clearance by 'authority' to sanction such moves was given - but it obviously was).

 

I don't know if the locomotive named after my Alma Mater - (30)910 - had the ceremony performed by the Head Boy, but in any case it was almost certainly done by the younger branch of School - the one in Northwood, not Crosby...

 

Best

Mark

[Ollie K]

56 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

No such problems seem to have been found with the naming of the SR Schools, where it was usual for the head boy of a school to name a locomotive after it, usually at the nearest station to the establishment. Thus started a proud association.

 

If I might be permitted a small correction...

 

SR Schools class no. 923 (built December 1933) was originally named 'Uppingham', but the name was quickly changed after the headmaster objected. Apparently he felt it improper of the Southern Railway to effectively presume his school was happy to 'advertise' on the SR.

 

No. 923 was hastily renamed 'Bradfield' in August 1934, but there are a few rare photos of the locomotive running with its original name.

 

In 1934 Uppingham School underwent a change of headmaster - one wonders if the objection to the railway association was at the whim of the new regime... 

 

In a twist of irony the 'Uppingham' nameplates are apparently on display somewhere in Uppingham School, but on the couple of occasions I had a poke around there after a cross-country fixture, I never spotted them.

 

 

Edited February 20, 2022 by OliverBytham
to add something

[polybear]

2 hours ago, landscapes said:

Hi

 

I enclose a photo from my Haymarket layout.

 

can I ask you in your opinion is this boring?

 

I do not have the skills as the likes of Tony and other modellers on this website to build locomotive kits, I am the first to admit that.

 

The two locomotives in this photo are both RTR models, but everything else you see including all structures and buildings I have scratch built from archive photographs, and to a point as well that includes the trackwork which is C&L Finescale and had to be made up.

 

Regards

 

David

 

Excellent - can we see more please?

 

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I can't find where I read about the Newcastle School's headmaster refusing to sanction a V2 being named after his establishment, but the cause (from what I recall) was that he wouldn't want his school associated with a filthy steam locomotive (could this be because of Gateshead's chronic shortage of cleaners?). 

 

 

A closet GW Man perhaps? 

I'll get my coat.....

[Woodcock29]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

Going back further, the GCR number would have been 1032, which would make it one of a batch built by Sharp Stewart for a Robinson 11B. From memory, they had 3250 Gallon tenders, built with two coal rails. A photo of 1031 of the same batch clearly shows it without a water scoop when new. I don't think they kept them on those locos very long and they were soon attached to water scoop fitted tenders of the 4000 Gallon variety. Being pedantic, 6032 is an LNER plate rather than a GCR one but that is an interesting revelation. What I don't know is if it may have been rebuilt at some time with a 4000 Gallon body, or if it is still a 3250 tank. It is hard to tell just by looking.

 

Edit to add that an 11B is an LNER D9 for those who only understand classes after 1923.

Tony Gee

What I neglected to say was that tender 6032 (agree LNER version of GC number 1032) is described in Yeadon's Appendix 2 as GC type b which is 4000 gallon, ie one of the 4000 gallon variants which may have originally had coal rails or solid coping plates depending when first built. Yeadon indicates the 4000 gallon tenders were first built in 1904 with four coal rails but from 1905, what I call coping plates (he refers to as coal guards) were solid steel.

 

Searching further in Yeadon Vol 20 there is a picture of what I think is Q4 5058 (Yeadon Tender Appendix indicates this loco had tender 6032 from 1/29-1/42). The loco's number on the cabside is very feint (particularly the 4th number) but looks like 5058 to me. You can't see much of the tender but it is a 4000 gallon tender with solid coping plates - but its not easy to tell if they are plates over coal rails (indicated by no beading). This loco went to Doncaster in 1/42 for rebuilding to a Q1 tank engine. Hence the tender became spare. Yeadon indicates the tender was sent to Gorton 4/4/42. Obviously it then went to Darlington to be paired with D49. 

 

Andrew

[Woodcock29]

22 hours ago, Headstock said:

I haven't given up on RTR locomotives completely, I will try the new A5 tank but if I am dissatisfied in anyway it will go back, no more adding to the cue.

I've got the LNER black lined in red A5 on order. Looking at the photos of the pre-production model it generally looks ok apart from the chimney. If they don't improve the chimney that will need to be replaced. Fortunately I have a spare Craftsman chimney in stock. Years ago I used to butcher these to make a shorter chimney for my B5, B2 and B3 - built back in the late 80s and early 90s.

Andrew

[landscapes]

39 minutes ago, polybear said:

 

Excellent - can we see more please?

 

 

A closet GW Man perhaps? 

I'll get my coat.....

Hi polybear

 

Thank you, I do have many of photos showing different views of the layout and have a few more I intend to show hopefully later today.

 

The layout is still work in progress and there is quite a bit of work to be completed.

 

I do not want to flood lots of my photos onto Tony’s thread but you can see many  more on my own thread, Haymarket 64B in the layout topics section.

 

At present I’m on about page 5 or 6 but that will chance with the next addition.

 

Regards

 

David

 

[rowanj]

I'm not clear which school in Newcastle Tony is referring to - I don't believe there was ever an institution called "Newcastle School" before 2005. I'm speculating that the reference should be Newcastle's Royal Grammar. If so, declining the offer of a name is strange, as it had, and possibly still has, an active Railway Society and a Model Railway Club.

Royal Grammar School Newcastle would have made a perfectly acceptable name, as long as the loco was shedded at Heaton, rather than Gateshead, as the former did clean their locos.

John

[great central]

4 minutes ago, rowanj said:

I'm not clear which school in Newcastle Tony is referring to - I don't believe there was ever an institution called "Newcastle School" before 2005. I'm speculating that the reference should be Newcastle's Royal Grammar. If so, declining the offer of a name is strange, as it had, and possibly still has, an active Railway Society and a Model Railway Club.

Royal Grammar School Newcastle would have made a perfectly acceptable name, as long as the loco was shedded at Heaton, rather than Gateshead, as the former did clean their locos.

John

 

Perhaps they could have made it a School punishment, rather than lines or detention miscreants had to go and clean loco with a toothbrush?

Then again there would probably be a good number deliberately getting themselves into trouble......