Wright writes.....

[Focalplane]

Tony

 

Another vote for Vimeo.

 

If you get a GoPro and want to share the high resolution movies, may I recommend vimeo.com?  You are allowed a certain amount of free data storage.  Upload the processed movie and then link to it from RMWeb.  I did this when Coachmann asked about the sounds of a particular decoder.  My short movie was taken with an iPad Mini but the same should apply to a GoPro.

 

Vimeo does not degrade your efforts like the other company does.

 

Paul

[Tony Wright]

Tony

 

Another vote for Vimeo.

 

If you get a GoPro and want to share the high resolution movies, may I recommend vimeo.com?  You are allowed a certain amount of free data storage.  Upload the processed movie and then link to it from RMWeb.  I did this when Coachmann asked about the sounds of a particular decoder.  My short movie was taken with an iPad Mini but the same should apply to a GoPro.

 

Vimeo does not degrade your efforts like the other company does.

 

Paul

Thanks Paul,

 

I'll wait until my sons come for Christmas. They'll know what to do. 

 

Much more up my street is the task I'm now tackling prior to Christmas; writing captions to some wonderful Keith Pirt B&W pictures of ex-LNER locos for a forthcoming book for Booklaw (to be released at the Glasgow Show at the end of February). 

 

It's being produced with modellers in mind, commenting on the various details to look out for when building/modifying a loco. 

 

Locos like this pair of J17s, photographed at March shed on the 25th of April 1954. I was in my eighth year on the planet at this time, so any comments cannot come from personal memory. 

 

 

 

Though several J17s are shown in the official documents as having small tenders (65515 being one of them), nowhere can I find any reference as to why the the cabside numbers are placed so low. A vertically-challenged painter perhaps? 

 

It's these sort of curiosities which I'll be commenting on. It's not my task to tell chapter and verse on the life-history of every loco featured in the book (over 160 individuals) because that's been done already. No, it's more with the modeller in mind.

 

I think there is a kit for a J17 (PDK?). I had a go at a Bec one years and years ago but was unhappy with it. Did a J17 have the same wheel-spacing as a Jinty? It was designed to go on a Tri-ang chassis. The spectacles followed the radius of the cab roof so that was also wrong. I gave it away in the end. 

 

The Crowood book has been signed off, so that'll be published next year. I'm also working on a further bookazine for Irwell featuring the Class 50s, again for publication next year. Then there's the MRJ piece to appear in January. When I think of all those out there working hard at their daily jobs, I consider myself most fortunate; in retirement, now doing all those things I really enjoy. And, there's also the making of models, for myself and with others. My apologies if this appears smug. 

[billbedford]

Much more up my street is the task I'm now tackling prior to Christmas; writing captions to some wonderful Keith Pirt B&W pictures of ex-LNER locos for a forthcoming book for Booklaw (to be released at the Glasgow Show at the end of February). 

 

It's being produced with modellers in mind, commenting on the various details to look out for when building/modifying a loco. 

 

 

Then I hope than none of the photos are three quarter front views.....

[jwealleans]

I think there is a kit for a J17 (PDK?)

There is, Tony - this is a Crownline one but the PDK is an improved (no idea how) version of the same thing.

 

 

 

It was one of the first etched locos I built and went together very nicely indeed.

 

I also have a BEC one, which you gave me, if you recall. I think that may be destined to become ballast weights.

Edited July 11, 2018 by jwealleans

[glo41f]

Tony

 

Thank you for the pictures of CF.  This layout must surely be one of the best ever as it incorporates the whole landscape and is totally redolent of North London. Something perhaps only attainable in 2mm due to the space requirements of larger scales. It also shows how a dedicated team can see a project through if they are determined enough. I heard comments that folk at Warley were unimpressed as the same trains were just circulating around but surely that is the whole point of the model to show a railway in its landscape. (I would not like to do shunting in 2mm having problem enough with it in 7mm!). The models you show which have been "breathed on" by various folk are again an inspiration. When you see what some folk can achieve with a little encouragement it makes you wonder on the rest who seem unable to change a number on a commercial model. (However it still does not make the shed any warmer and my fingers refuse to work after a short time!).

 

Martin Long

[Corbs]

Good morning Corbs,

 

Many thanks for your response. My apologies for being so ignorant that I don't understand any of it. 

 

No problem Tony! It can be a minefield. From your description it sounds like it is a video file. 

 

In case it is useful, I found a video tutorial for how to set up a vimeo.com account here:

 

Here is the frequently asked questions page on vimeo itself, which has help on getting set up and uploading a video.

https://vimeo.com/help/faq/uploading-to-vimeo

Edited December 6, 2016 by Corbs

[St Enodoc]

It reminds me of the time when a GWR supporter pointed out that the first man to walk on the moon was named Armstrong. The reply from the LNWR people was that they had a moon of their own.

Bernard

 

A letter from John F Harrison shortly after the event in 1969, with an editorial response by CJF.

we need to get in contact as i would love to! 

 

PM on its way.

[Tony Wright]

Then I hope than none of the photos are three quarter front views.....

Bill 

 

With the greatest of respect, how could such a book be of any value where none of the pictures is a three quarter front view? 

 

The two I've illustrated are but there are side views, front views, back views, three quarter rear views, views from above (though none from below), views with locos single, in groups, on trains (of all kinds) and detail views. 

 

Views like the following - is this what you're after? 

 

 

 

 

 

There are hundreds and hundreds of images I'm choosing from. For obvious reasons, I'll not be posting others but I'd be surprised if there'll be nothing of use to modellers. I'll also be commenting on the trains being hauled. 

 

Just about every ex-LNER class is represented. Though (it would appear) to be of little value to you, Booklaw seems to think there'll be a market for such a book; hence my being commissioned to write it. It's not the first, either. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

There is, Tony - this is a Crownline one but the PDK is an improved (no idea how) version of the same thing.

 

 

 

It was one of the first etched locos I built and went together very nicely indeed.

 

I also have a BEC one, which you gave me, if you recall. I think that may be destined to become ballast weights.

Thanks Jonathan,

 

I'd forgotten about that other J17. Ballast is just about the best use for it. 

[glo41f]

J17's are quite lovely in my view as they rather epitomise the purposeful GE look. They were known in the eastern counties as "knock johns"  though quite why I have no idea. I have heard other footplate types describe all GE freight locos as "knocks" with a J15 being a "knock 1" but again I know not why. (Parkeston Shed talk). I am pleased that one still survives and a passenger fitted one at that but sadly it is banged up and not allowed to steam. Would it not be lovely if the very few ex GE locos could be allowed to be on heritage line in their own area - indeed all preserved locos go back to their roots as, when they are stuffed and mounted in museums, nobody really notices them. (Just imagine the North Norfolk with B12, J17, J15, E4, N7 and J69!)  One J17 had wheel splashers the only one so to do. Is there a picturte of this one in the collection as it was a March loco.

 

The BEC kit was bad but it was one of the first "easy" kits for us to make as  and although the cab front was awful, at least it was a GE loco and we were grateful at the time for that! (It was easier than the Wills compromise J69 and the later N7). We werte grateful at the time.

 

Martin Long

[micklner]

Then I hope than none of the photos are three quarter front views.....

 

      At a guess above refer to detail photos as being a very good reason IMHO for buying said book. There are hundreds perhaps thousands of books which show the same old 3/4 views of locos. How often do you see a photo of the whole rear of a Tender or it interior.

 

     The only downside to this, is its limited appeal to many modellers of the LNER due to pre group company Locos mostly staying in that area all or most of there lives, even many LNER built Locos were not used over the whole of the LNER System.

 

    Sales would be better perhaps? with a number of small books/bookazines e.g NER Locos and LNER Locos for that area, GER and LNER Locos , etc etc .

 

Not many people will want to buy a book containing only a few of the Locos they model.

[Tony Wright]

      At a guess above refer to detail photos as being a very good reason IMHO for buying said book. There are hundreds perhaps thousands of books which show the same old 3/4 views of locos. How often do you see a photo of the whole rear of a Tender or it interior.

 

     The only downside to this, is its limited appeal to many modellers of the LNER due to pre group company Locos mostly staying in that area all or most of there lives, even many LNER built Locos were not used over the whole of the LNER System.

 

    Sales would be better perhaps? with a number of small books/bookazines e.g NER Locos and LNER Locos for that area, GER and LNER Locos , etc etc .

 

Not many people will want to buy a book containing only a few of the Locos they model.

Thanks Mick, 

 

The books are not going to be expensive - there'll be soft-back format containing some 160-180 pictures of locos, including detail close-ups, etc. 

 

It might well be that there'll be 'regionalised'. That decision will be taken once the selection is made. 

 

Though the intention is to be of use to modellers, I hope any of the books will have a wider appeal as well. The largest interest in railways (model and prototype) seems to me to be in the 'baby-boomer' generation; those born at the end of the war or just post-war - those who saw BR steam in operation and remember it with affection and, in many cases, wish to model the period. That said, the demographic is changing (as that generation reaches its 70s and inevitably diminishes), and the BR blue period is gaining interest; if sales of my recent Irwell bookazines are anything to go by. But, who knows? 

 

Whatever else might be commented on, all the images I'm selecting are perfectly exposed and razor-sharp. 

 

Time will tell as to the books' appeal. 

[Tony Wright]

J17's are quite lovely in my view as they rather epitomise the purposeful GE look. They were known in the eastern counties as "knock johns"  though quite why I have no idea. I have heard other footplate types describe all GE freight locos as "knocks" with a J15 being a "knock 1" but again I know not why. (Parkeston Shed talk). I am pleased that one still survives and a passenger fitted one at that but sadly it is banged up and not allowed to steam. Would it not be lovely if the very few ex GE locos could be allowed to be on heritage line in their own area - indeed all preserved locos go back to their roots as, when they are stuffed and mounted in museums, nobody really notices them. (Just imagine the North Norfolk with B12, J17, J15, E4, N7 and J69!)  One J17 had wheel splashers the only one so to do. Is there a picturte of this one in the collection as it was a March loco.

 

The BEC kit was bad but it was one of the first "easy" kits for us to make as  and although the cab front was awful, at least it was a GE loco and we were grateful at the time for that! (It was easier than the Wills compromise J69 and the later N7). We werte grateful at the time.

 

Martin Long

Thanks Martin,

 

I'm not sure what you mean about one J17 having wheel splashers. They all have driving wheel splashers don't they? Do you mean coupling rod splashers? 

[glo41f]

Thanks Martin,

 

I'm not sure what you mean about one J17 having wheel splashers. They all have driving wheel splashers don't they? Do you mean coupling rod splashers? 

Yes sorry.

 

Martin Long

[Dominion]

For judging speed, I work on the approximation that a coach passing per second (allowing 65 ft per coach) is about 45 mph. (in 4mm scale)

So 3 coaches in 2 seconds is about 67 mph

And 2 "regular" steam age wagons a second is between 25 and 30 mph.

Tom

[jrg1]

J17's are quite lovely in my view as they rather epitomise the purposeful GE look. They were known in the eastern counties as "knock johns"  though quite why I have no idea. I have heard other footplate types describe all GE freight locos as "knocks" with a J15 being a "knock 1" but again I know not why. (Parkeston Shed talk). I am pleased that one still survives and a passenger fitted one at that but sadly it is banged up and not allowed to steam. Would it not be lovely if the very few ex GE locos could be allowed to be on heritage line in their own area - indeed all preserved locos go back to their roots as, when they are stuffed and mounted in museums, nobody really notices them. (Just imagine the North Norfolk with B12, J17, J15, E4, N7 and J69!)  One J17 had wheel splashers the only one so to do. Is there a picturte of this one in the collection as it was a March loco.

 

The BEC kit was bad but it was one of the first "easy" kits for us to make as  and although the cab front was awful, at least it was a GE loco and we were grateful at the time for that! (It was easier than the Wills compromise J69 and the later N7). We werte grateful at the time.

 

Martin Long

The reason we have a B12 in preservation today was entirely due to shedmaster Bill Harvey storing 61572 at the back of Norwich shed and refusing Stratford's request to send it for scrapping.  If only he had got his hands on the last D16 as well.

[stewartingram]

But 62613 was squirrelled away in a shed somewhere, on a farm I believe? One day someone will find it and restore it. That's the story I've heard a few times over the years, just hope it is true.

 

Stewart

[Tony Wright]

 

Having said I'd post no more KP images, I couldn't resist this one.............................

 

Sorry Martin, I can't find the J17 you mention. There are, however, many others. 

[jrg1]

But 62613 was squirrelled away in a shed somewhere, on a farm I believe? One day someone will find it and restore it. That's the story I've heard a few times over the years, just hope it is true.

 

Stewart

Along with the last B17, on a farm or part of the fabled strategic reserve.  I wish.  62613 condemned from March 25/10/60, scrapped Stratford.  61668 condemned Stratford 8/60, scrapped Stratford

[Woodcock29]

J17's are quite lovely in my view as they rather epitomise the purposeful GE look. They were known in the eastern counties as "knock johns"  though quite why I have no idea. I have heard other footplate types describe all GE freight locos as "knocks" with a J15 being a "knock 1" but again I know not why. (Parkeston Shed talk). I am pleased that one still survives and a passenger fitted one at that but sadly it is banged up and not allowed to steam. Would it not be lovely if the very few ex GE locos could be allowed to be on heritage line in their own area - indeed all preserved locos go back to their roots as, when they are stuffed and mounted in museums, nobody really notices them. (Just imagine the North Norfolk with B12, J17, J15, E4, N7 and J69!)  One J17 had wheel splashers the only one so to do. Is there a picturte of this one in the collection as it was a March loco.

 

The BEC kit was bad but it was one of the first "easy" kits for us to make as  and although the cab front was awful, at least it was a GE loco and we were grateful at the time for that! (It was easier than the Wills compromise J69 and the later N7). We werte grateful at the time.

 

Martin Long

Hello Everyone

 

In reply to Martin's question re the J17 with crankpin splashers - it was LNER No 8170, later 5520 and 65520. According to Yeadon Vol 41 it was used to trial grease nipples (which were higher)for coupling rod lubrication but although the trial was discontinued the small additional crankpin splashers remained.

 

Tony in regard to the low numbers on the cab of 65515 above this seems to have been common practice in LNER days where J17s were coupled to the small 2640 gallon tenders but I can't find any such evidence of this in BR days in Vol 41 so perhaps 65515 might be an oddity - others might know more?

 

As to the old BEC J17 bodyline kit I offer below a photo of one rebuilt by me 25-30 years ago from one originally built by my Dad. It still has a Triang chassis albeit fitted with Romfords and a replacment Buhler motor. The incorrect wheelbase of the chassis is characterised by the significant splasher include in the front of the cab. This one has had the spectacle plates modified to square off the tops, a new cab roof and a Crownline chimney - although I think the rim of the chimney is a bit too pronounced. One day it may get a new chassis but I would need to remove most of the splasher at the front of the cab. I actually have another that I was given a couple of years ago in a box of botched kits from a deceased estate - interestingly that is a later kit as the spectacle plates are correct in that so maybe that could form the basis for another rebuild but with a better chassis. I could couple that to a 2640 gallon tender and build it with low cab numbers for something different as there is a J15 kit in the box as well!

 

Andrew Emmett

[grob1234]

303.5 - 60106 Doncaster Shed 14.11.63 small.jpg

 

Having said I'd post no more KP images, I couldn't resist this one.............................

 

Sorry Martin, I can't find the J17 you mention. There are, however, many others.

 

That's exactly the sort of picture that is of use to the modeller. An unusual view, crisp and sharp, that image would allow somebody to add detail to a model and make a really good attempt at getting it spot on.

[Tony Wright]

That's exactly the sort of picture that is of use to the modeller. An unusual view, crisp and sharp, that image would allow somebody to add detail to a model and make a really good attempt at getting it spot on.

There are plenty more, Tom. Many more!

 

It's not only the principal subject in question which is interesting. Though not particularly significant in this shot (just a 9F and a GNR tender), loads of the others have some real oddities in the background with regard to arcane items of rolling stock. KRP had taken a shot of a loco/detail and what's in the background has been recorded (of course) as well - in sharp focus. Not only that, there is a mass of infrastructure recorded - stations, signals, water columns, coaling stages, shed structures, civil engineering, etc, etc. I'm sure to many modellers these will be of great help, too, and I'll be commenting accordingly. 

 

Because KRP always had permits for his photography, most of the locations (even at stations) would not have been accessible without one, other than by trespass. Thus, I believe the views overall will be great assistance to modellers (not just of the e-LNER, because some of the locations are at least 'twin-regional'), even though, inevitably, several of the images will be three-quarter front (and rear) views. 

[Focalplane]

303.5 - 60106 Doncaster Shed 14.11.63 small.jpg

 

Having said I'd post no more KP images, I couldn't resist this one.............................

 

Sorry Martin, I can't find the J17 you mention. There are, however, many others. 

 

Tony

 

What I really admire about this photo is the detail in the shadows, under the tender's footplate.  So often the details that we really need to see are invisible.

 

Out of interest, do you have any knowledge of the film format(s) and camera(s) used?  I am not sure modern digital cameras could give this quality and combination of contrast, texture and detail.

 

I look forward to the LMS version!

[bike2steam]

Nice to see the models of the J17's, haven't seen a good one since the days of being involved with 'Ongar' in the mid- late 70's.

[glo41f]

The picture of the coal rail tender is exactly the sort of thing that modellers want. As well as showing the detail it also shows the bumps dents and scratches that equipment received in the course of their everyday work. It is very difficult to model this "distressing" as most folk strive to get a perfect finish. Even the modern stuff has it (look along the sides of a diesel and see the ripples). 

 

As to the Claud, well I am afraid we will not see another, unless I win the lottery! It would have to be a new build and frankly, I cannot see the present enthusiasm for such things continuing much further into the future. There will just not be the money around for such adventures. This is why I feel it is a shame that what we do have is not allowed to run as they will signify nothing to future generations. Indeed in times of hardship we may well see railway and transport museums closed and the contents scrapped. It has happened elsewhere. A rather depressing view.

 

I attended a talk by a representative of the East Anglian Railway museum who stated that it was highly unlikely that the N7 would be restored to run again in the foreseeable future as the folk have no desire to work on the loco only to have it run all over the place as they cannot really justify it there. So another GE type stuffed and mounted to go with the collection. Thank heaven that in our model world we can have them all.

 

Martin Long