Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

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!

Paul,

 

Keith invested in a Leica at quite an early stage of his photography. 

 

I think he used Ilford for his B&W work and, when it became available, Kodak 64 ASA transparency for colour work. 

 

Reading through some of the notes, it would appear that he took pictures in as near perfect lighting as possible. In winter he would choose clear bright days, often frosty to give him the clarity of image he sought. It would seem he never used anything slower that 250th of a second exposure for moving trains. 

[Tony Wright]

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

Having said I'd post no more KRP pictures, I've decided to include two more (then that's it). These are not in the final selection. May I also please point out that all these images are copyright and that should be respected?

 

 

You mention a Claud, Martin. Though disliked by some, I think this three-quarter front view is still of great use to modellers. It's a very low-res scan, but even so it's still clear. I wonder, in their zeal for accuracy, how many model-makers would include the bent front end?

 

 

 

TRACERY approaching Retford with a Down extra. If nothing else, this shot shows the 'detective' work necessary in writing a caption because the picture is dated as 11.08.61. Normally, I'd take that as the 11th of August '61, but look at those trees. This is a winter shot, so should I say it's the 8th of November? The trees are really bare bare, so I'd guess at early 1962. Any offers? 

 

The main detail in this shot is in the formation of the train. What a mixture, including Mk.1s. Again, it's a low-res scan but what a boon to modellers who want to make up accurate, full-length ECML expresses of the period. Again, it's the disliked three-quarter front view but there's still a wealth of modelling information to be gleaned from a shot like this - two Mk.1s, two end-door Gresleys, an all-door Gresley and one Thompson PV car (I have the high-res image). If nothing else it shows how much taller Gresley/Thompson stock was than the Mk.1s.

[micklner]

 

 

2F.16.14 - 62605 March Shed 25.04.54.jpg

 

You mention a Claud, Martin. Though disliked by some, I think this three-quarter front view is still of great use to modellers. It's a very low-res scan, but even so it's still clear. I wonder, in their zeal for accuracy, how many model-makers would include the bent front end?

 

 

 

 

I know see were Hornby got the idea for the Ski Ramp version of A3 Book Law from   !!!         

 

 

Cracking pictures Tony , it doesn't always matter re the angle of a photo , as long as the detail can be seen for that part of a Loco, Coach or anything else.

[Porcy Mane]

 If nothing else it shows how much taller Gresley/Thompson stock was than the Mk.1s.

 

...and a nice upward curve to the Gresley sole-bar when compared to the leading BG.

 

P

[DLT]

I wonder, in their zeal for accuracy, how many model-makers would include the bent front end?

 

Very difficult to achieve without it looking like poor modelling "Oo, that footplate's bent".

[Mallard60022]

 

Very difficult to achieve without it looking like poor modelling "Oo, that footplate's bent".

I know someone that would do that 'ding' and have the picture to hand to 'discuss accuracy' with the person making the comment.

As for the approaching Retford shot Tony, where would you say that was?  Yes, I would say early in the '62 year and someone will have a record of that working (181 is it?)

Phil

Edit to say I think it is north of the London Road Bridge despite me thinking this was a curve. The curve is nearer the Station I think.

P

Edited December 8, 2016 by Mallard60022

[Focalplane]

The problem with dates is that there are basically two formats in use.  The MM/DD/YY format is sometimes called "military notation" in the UK so, is it possible the photographer was in the military at one time?

 

Having been subject to both formats in my career, with the inevitable misunderstandings that result, I have always used three letters for the month.  That way there can be no confusion.

 

Another possibility is that the date could be the time the film was developed.  A pro lab in Houston always marked transparencies with the processing date.  However, the subject film would have been exposed for around 6 months before it was developed which is surely not likely?

 

So perhaps it was simply a mistake.

 

The photo reminds me of trainspotting days on the Trent Valley Line at Tamworth.  If only had owned a camera back then!

[Flood]

The BR database says that Tracery received trough deflectors on 29 September 1961 so the photo must be after that date.

 

I heard somewhere that leaf fall used to be before bonfire night (and were able to be burned at that time) but with the changes in the weather cycles the date the leaves fall has got later.

 

From the met office website:

Dr Kate Lewthwaite, project manager for Nature’s Calendar for the Woodland Trust, said: “For example, our data shows that, on average, native trees are producing ripe fruit 18 days earlier than a decade ago, with a potential consequence being that animals’ food reserves could become depleted earlier in the winter. In contrast, leaf fall, indicating the end of the growing season, is often much later nowadays than in the past.”

 

Perhaps the trees had lost their leaves by 8th November in 1961.

 

Graham H

Edited December 7, 2016 by Flood

[CME and Bottlewasher]

As always, thanks again Martin. 

 

I'll dig out some more shots of CF. 

 

Your point about continuing to strive is well-made. And, speaking of such, I posted the picture below about 18 months ago. 

 

Dsc_1119.jpg

 

A regular visitor is my good friend Geoff West. He originally came for tuition with his model-making, but now it's more of a social visit. Early in 2015 he brought this; bought as part of an ebay purchase, he asked my advice as to what to do with this DJH A1. 'Bury it' I seem to recall was my answer. Please note the buffers attached underneath the cab. 

 

A1.jpg

 

He didn't take my advice and today he brought this. I helped him add the last of the valve gear (he made it) and what'll be 60123 fairly romped round LB. It is the same model and, if you look closely, there are elements where not everything is straight and true. However, what a transformation! In terms of performance, this'll beat any RTR equivalent out of sight. It took 11 cars (mainly kit-built) with ease. The other day a Bachmann A2 (one of only three RTR Pacifics I still keep) just polished its wheels on the same rake. 

 

I think what gives me the greatest pleasure (having acted really only as a teacher) is the fact that Geoff has done almost all of this himself. Yes, no doubt those who don't try to model themselves will cite that a Bachmann A1 might be visually better overall, but so what? The RTR product still needs detailing and fiddling with to get it correct (and it's still feeble in comparison), but I say again, so what? Anyone can buy an RTR equivalent (as long as they have the money) and anyone (as long as they have the money) can ask someone to detail/improve/renumber/rename it should they feel incapable of doing it themselves (though why, rather escapes me, but that is another subject). It takes someone who's prepared to have a go themselves to make a fist of that A1. I wouldn't have done! Rescuing such a basket case as this I considered way beyond me. 

 

Jamieson J39.jpg

 

Earlier this year, Geoff bought a couple of the late Andrew Kinsella's locos, including a Jamieson J39 - this one. Having stripped it, repainted, lettered and weathered it, this is the result. It isn't highly-detailed but it's his own work in finishing it off. I particularly like the weathering. 

 

Bachmann J39.jpg

 

He also altered a Bachmamm J39. Again, the weathering is excellent. It was amusing in a way but, despite the RTR loco being more detailed and even more accurate, we both preferred the Jamieson one. It had more 'presence'. It was, of course, more powerful. 

 

So, please, despite the winter weather and the low ebb of productivity, all you modellers out there (and all who post on this thread are real modellers in my book), do have a go. There is nothing in my view as satisfying as seeing something you've made run round a layout. Far more so than an RTR product (though, as I've said many times, I have great respect for those who improve such items themselves) and definitely more satisfying than seeing something run round that someone else has done for you (the generic 'you'). Why not give it a try? 

Hi Tony,

 

Golly things move apace here!

 

I have rescued wagons in similar/worse order - boxes and trays under traders' table whereby the trader sometimes tries to hoodwink one into thinking that such models are the zenith of the craft, then the haggling starts. A couple of times I thought that I had bitten off more than I could chew, yet with new parts from ABS and Parkside things came good (sorry no photos on another PC).

 

What I like, is that whilst putting others' co....mistakes right is harder than starting with a new kit, from a satisfaction POV and/or for the good of the environment etc etc it is nice to see these models finished and being used (played with dare I say). I believe that talking such ugly ducklings helps one build model-making skills and from a psychological POV it helps too, especially when later on conversion work is needed on a more expensive model (if one knows how materials and tools react/work in various situations it builds confidence). I wouldn't advocate buying such awful models and paying a decent price for them - that defeats the object, even if the seller/vendor believes that such are the crown jewels, my advice is if the price aint right then walk away (this is also relative to skills, time, the will to take on such/learn and the rarity of the type/model).

 

If the price is right and the heart and mind are willing then bringing such models back to life can be very fulfilling, satisfying and means that another kit has been built and is being enjoyed by builder, user and onlooker alike (just how many un-built kits are there in lofts?). One manufacturer of kits (superb quality, great value for money etc.) once told me how many of a specific kit he had sold, and at exhibition or elsewhere, neither of us had seen them in use in those sorts of quantities, ergo there must be a lot left un-built. Which although financially the manufacturer had benefited from such, saddened him as he would have liked to have seen more running (his kits are not hard to build if one takes the time and effort).

 

I greatly admire what your friends have done to bring - under your guidance - those poor waifs and strays back to life, I know how challenging - but rewarding - that can be!

 

My Lima coach conversions are taking longer than I thought as they had already been mildly modified and 'detailed' with lots of extra glue (deep joy!) and bits - but I have almost finished cutting all but three of the Brakes in half and removing the 'details' and detritus - they had been well played with on a garden railway so are in their second or third incarnation. The sides are still in good order, the extremities had become brittle (that was okay as they are being replaced anyway), many of these models are now over 40 years old and will now serve on Down Ampney. At one time I could build one for £75.00, now its nearer £110 although buying parts ahead of time price-fixes them. They have decent tumblehomes and when widened/lengthen/detailed most onlookers will never know of their cheap and cheerful origins. Plus when finished I will have triumphed over adversity!

 

ATVB

 

CME

[Tony Wright]

I know someone that would do that 'ding' and have the picture to hand to 'discuss accuracy' with the person making the comment.

As for the approaching Retford shot Tony, where would you say that was?  Yes, I would say early in the '62 year and someone will have a record of that working (181 is it?)

Phil

Phil,

 

I once exhibited with a guy who'd deliberately fitted a (very) bent handrail down one side of a 4-4-0 he'd built. Whenever anyone commented, he'd whip out the prototype picture he'd used and that was that. It was bent in exactly the manner he'd modelled. The problem was, it just looked like bad-building. 

 

Please, take a close look at that original West Country you have of mine. Because of the nature of the Crownline kit's methodology of construction, the side overlays buckled when I soldered them in place. Just like the real thing looked? However, that too looks more like my poor construction. I also built a Comet LMS tender and that cockled and buckled as I applied the iron. Realistic? Perhaps, but it still looked more like poor building that anything real. 

 

This presents modellers with a dilemma in my view. How realistic should we strive to make our models? Should we replicate every ding and dent, every bent bit and every out-of-kilter detail? Should we put our numbers on crookedly, or unevenly spaced? In the '50s, both 60010 and 60012 had the lower lining band on their tenders not parallel with their bases; it was raised up towards the cab (I'll look through the KRP images to see if he's got a shot of it). It just looked odd, and I'd warrant, even more odd in model form. 

 

The pictures I'm examining show a large number of cabs not vertical (60044's being one), cab roofs anything but uniform in their curve and myriad examples of bent handrails, both horizontal and vertical. Perhaps some of my modelling is extremely accurate. 

 

The Retford shot is, I believe, taken from the remains of the level crossing just north of the A1 bridge (seen in the distance) which once gave a shorter route from Ordsall to Retford. The Idle bridge is behind KRP and from the aspect of the distant in the distance and the fact that the loco is in (fairly) pronounced forward gear, I'd say the train has been checked and is now accelerating towards the crossing. Were it a stopper, I'd venture the loco would be in almost mid-gear (unless it had been stopped at Grove Road). 

Edited December 7, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Enterprisingwestern]

If replicating every ding and dent, then you are getting pretty specific about the day, indeed, moment in time that you are modelling, unless you have a picture of every item of rolling stock on your layout on that same exact date and time, then where do you stop?

 

Mike.

[Headstock]

Mk1 carriages were only half an inch shorter than Gresley carriages, hardly worth bothering with in 4mm scale. What really makes the difference is the profile of the roof above the cornice, that on the Mk1 being much shallower than LNER stock. As a result, Gresley and Thompson carriages look significantly taller when marshaled alongside MK1 stock in three-quarter view. Apparently, the Mk1 BG was shorter than other Mk1 carriages and would be an inch shorter than an LNER carriage.

[jrg1]

Replicating dings and such as bent handrails on a model just looks like bad modelling.  I remember an article on building a diesel class 47 whereby the author suggested to be authentic, he should represent the bug squashings on the cab front.  As it was Monty Wells, perhaps he was pulling our collective legs.

What looks perfectly acceptable full size is a different matter entirely on a model railway.  

For that matter, would anyone go to the trouble of modelling the LMS Princess examples finished in maroon livery with orange lining?  Looks totally wrong to me.

[Porcy Mane]

Apparently, the Mk1 BG was shorter than other Mk1 carriages and would be an inch shorter than an LNER carriage.

 

With the BR Mk.1 BG being built on the 57ft underframe I suspect your maths may be slightly out.

 

But then again, I suppose it depends on the type of LNER carriage it's being compared to.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Porcy Mane

[Headstock]

With the BR Mk.1 BG being built on the 57ft underframe I suspect your maths may be slightly out.

 

But then again, I suppose it depends on the type of LNER carriage it's being compared to.

 

One inch Shorter in height not length, apparently.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Headstock

[Porcy Mane]

One inch Shorter in height not length, apparently.

 

... and that's not taking into account sagging springs, worn knife edges and the fat lady singing in the compartment above the bogie pivot.

[Headstock]

... and that's not taking into account sagging springs, worn knife edges and the fat lady singing in the compartment above the bogie pivot.

 

Or the Elephant trumpeting in the BG.

[Porcy Mane]

Or the Elephant trumpeting in the BG.

 

 

Oh come on. Everyone knows elephants preferred  BR GUV's.

 

 

"© National Railway Museum and SSPL" Released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Licence.

http://www.nrm.org.uk/ourcollection/photo?group=Liverpool%20Street&objid=1995-7233_LIVST_PM_183A

 

and

http://www.nrm.org.uk/ourcollection/photo?group=Liverpool%20Street&objid=1995-7233_LIVST_PM_184

http://www.nrm.org.uk/ourcollection/photo?group=Liverpool%20Street&objid=1995-7233_LIVST_PM_183

 

with John  (oooh gerroff me foot!) Noakes nowhere to be seen.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Porcy Mane

[Headstock]

 

 

Oh come on. Everyone knows elephants preferred  BR GUV's.

 

Ooo-erParp.jpg

 

"© National Railway Museum and SSPL" Released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Licence.

http://www.nrm.org.uk/ourcollection/photo?group=Liverpool%20Street&objid=1995-7233_LIVST_PM_183A

 

and

http://www.nrm.org.uk/ourcollection/photo?group=Liverpool%20Street&objid=1995-7233_LIVST_PM_184

http://www.nrm.org.uk/ourcollection/photo?group=Liverpool%20Street&objid=1995-7233_LIVST_PM_183

 

with John  (oooh gerroff me foot!) Noakes nowhere to be seen.

 

I see that they have been asked to deposit a bit of weight before embarking.

[Porcy Mane]

I see that they have been asked to deposit a bit of weight before embarking.

 

Dependant on age, always advisable. 

[Tony Wright]

Many thanks for all the splendid comments on dings, dents, roof heights and so on......................

 

 

Would anyone model a tender like this?

 

 

Or this?

 

 

Over 58 years ago, maybe some of these might. I keep on looking, and one day I'll appear in a KRP picture at Retford, but so far I haven't found it. 

 

Speaking of Keith Pirt, I've found out more information about his cameras. My apologies for mentioning his getting a Leica at an 'early stage' of his photography. It would seem that he didn't acquire one until the turn of the '50s/'60s decade. Prior to that he used a Retina 111C with a 50mm F2 Xenon lens or a Voigtlander VITO B with a 50mm F3.5 lens. His Leica was an M3 with a 50mm F1.4 Summilux lens. All these cameras/lenses were very high-quality.

 

Another point is that his dating system was definitely day:month:year. 

 

Returning to the picture of 60059 posted earlier, my apologies for probably confusing everyone, including myself. May I try again, please? 

 

The signal in the distance (which was co-acting) was probably Grove Road's advanced starter with Retford South's distant underneath it (which is 'on'). The loco might then expect to stop at South box's home signal (which was adjacent to the Idle bridge). However, from memory, the respective distants were sometimes kept 'on' to slow trains in advance of being stopped. After South box's home was its starter (actually three, for it was a bracket signal controlling access to Platform 2, Platform 3 or the Down goods avoiding line). Beneath the starter was North box's distant. The next Down signal was North box's home (another splitter) and beneath that Babworth's distant. So, that's three distant signals within a mile of (fast) track. If I've got this wrong, my further apologies. So, it looks to me that the A3 is being has been/being checked but is anticipating accelerating again. Perhaps a signalling expert might care to comment, please. 

 

Finally, for anyone interested, Ian Harper of Haymarket Cross fame has turned to O Gauge. He has, therefore, a large collection of OO ER locos/stock for sale. Anyone interested should contact him on 01723 366811 or 07966 230271. 

Edited December 8, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

One inch Shorter in height not length, apparently.

Perhaps better to say 'lower'? 

 

It prevents ambiguity. 

[Daddyman]

Cracking pictures Tony , it doesn't always matter re the angle of a photo , as long as the detail can be seen for that part of a Loco, Coach or anything else.

But the problem with the A3 photo above, and with the GE 0-6-2 on the previous page, is that there is no detail to see. I must admit I can't quite see the point of these two photos. The A3, for example, shows no detail on the bogie stretcher bar, which is about all I would want from a front end view of an A3, and on the 0-6-2 all the chassis detail is in shadow. Likewise, on the D30 photo, I'm not quite sure what there is to be pointed out to the modeller - that the s.box wrapper is riveted in typical postwar Cowlairs style? It's a good photo nonetheless, and perhaps one never knows what will be useful to people - the route of the vacuum pipe, the worn-away rivets on the b.beam, or the fact that the buffers are available from Dave Franks at LMS? Could you give us an example caption, say on the D30, showing the kind of thing you would point out? 

 

What you say in your captions and what the photos show may, of course, be academic if Book Law (sic) do their usual trick of clipping the edges off the photos, and leave the captions dangling. I've been reading their North East Scrapyards book in which twice so far the captions refer to something that has been cut out of the picture. And that's not even mentioning Book Law's war on the English language ... 

 

Re Mick's earlier comment about dividing the books into regions, this is something I'd like to see. I wouldn't like to have to wade through what would presumably be the majority of the book on GE, GN and GC types. In fits of open-mindedness (which I afterwards regret) I can just about manage looking at NE locos. 

[Tony Wright]

But the problem with the A3 photo above, and with the GE 0-6-2 on the previous page, is that there is no detail to see. I must admit I can't quite see the point of these two photos. The A3, for example, shows no detail on the bogie stretcher bar, which is about all I would want from a front end view of an A3, and on the 0-6-2 all the chassis detail is in shadow. Likewise, on the D30 photo, I'm not quite sure what there is to be pointed out to the modeller - that the s.box wrapper is riveted in typical postwar Cowlairs style? It's a good photo nonetheless, and perhaps one never knows what will be useful to people - the route of the vacuum pipe, the worn-away rivets on the b.beam, or the fact that the buffers are available from Dave Franks at LMS? Could you give us an example caption, say on the D30, showing the kind of thing you would point out? 

 

What you say in your captions and what the photos show may, of course, be academic if Book Law (sic) do their usual trick of clipping the edges off the photos, and leave the captions dangling. I've been reading their North East Scrapyards book in which twice so far the captions refer to something that has been cut out of the picture. And that's not even mentioning Book Law's war on the English language ... 

 

Re Mick's earlier comment about dividing the books into regions, this is something I'd like to see. I wouldn't like to have to wade through what would presumably be the majority of the book on GE, GN and GC types. In fits of open-mindedness (which I afterwards regret) I can just about manage looking at NE locos. 

Thanks Daddyman.

 

Do I know you; have we spoken with each other? 

 

Your comments are very pertinent, so, my thanks again. I don't think there's much more I can add about the D30 picture; not without consulting the leaned documents, because the class is outside my 'normal' modelling activities. 

 

 

I could comment about the above, though. That it appears to be one of the trio of A4 tenders with their back ends cut down in 1948 to clear the water cranes on the LMS and SR during the locomotive exchanges. These tenders ran behind (at various times) MALLARD, SEAGULL, LORD FARINGDON, WOODCOCK, UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA and FLYING SCOTSMAN (the last-mentioned in preservation). Any useful information in that? 

 

The cropping of pictures is not unique to Booklaw to be fair. I've had it occur in articles I've written on both prototype and model subjects. 

 

As for a war on the English language, I have been assured that what is written will be entirely down to me. So, if I have indulged in hostilities against our native tongue, the responsibility will be entirely mine - as will be the blame. 

 

Finally, may I make one comment on detail in photographs, please? I first heard it from one of the greatest of modellers (and authors), the late David Jenkinson. I'd just written and illustrated a piece for him, which included comments on detail. His words were (or as near as I can remember) 'Tony, obtain a picture (or preferably pictures) of your chosen prototype which is (are) well-lit and clear. Place the model you're building at the same angle as the prototype picture(s) at the same relative distance. Now, closely examine the prototype picture(s). Any detail you can see clearly, put it on. Anything you can't see, even though you know it to be there - injectors, internal pipework, brake cylinders? - don't bother with'. He also told me that if the only way you can see all the detail on the underframe of a model carriage is if that carriage has derailed, tumbled down an embankment and landed upside down in a ditch, then don't build a model where this happens!

 

I wish I had just a fraction of his wisdom. 

[gr.king]

Many thanks for all the splendid comments on dings, dents, roof heights and so on......................

 

2F.16.2 - 64186 Grantham Shed 25.04.54 small.jpg

 

A timely excuse for some of the defects revealed by a coat of primer on one of my GN tenders yesterday.