Tony Wright

On 19/09/2024 at 01:22, 45568 said:

A return to lovely WestOz Spring weather, (temperature mid-20sC, gentle breezes, sunshine), has enabled me to finish more projects started over winter. The following pix show the results.

 

45505, a Bachmann Patriot equipped with the high-sided 3500gal tender. This is built from etchings provided by innocentman of this parish attached to a Bachmann 3500gal tender body and chassis. The BR green is brush-painted Humbrol 104 from a new 30-year-old tin! Lining/crests/plates by Fox. Note: If you use the Fox Stanier Jubilee tender lining you need two packs for this tender to achieve the upper curves!

 

Classmate 45502 is a simple rename/number to one of the less well-known class members.

 

As is 45520. The early crest tender is appropriate for this locomotive as according to the RCTS book on the class, it never received a late crest.

 

Cab doors on this loco have gone walkabout, if anyone has any spare please let me know if you wish to be rid of them!

Finally, a simple renumber of a Hornby Stanier tank to a Kirkby-in-Ashfield regular.

 

Same lovely weather for the next few days, where is that worklist??!!

Cheers from Oz,

Peter C.

Very nice, Pete,

Thanks for showing us.

I did a 'modification' job on a Bachmann Patriot for Bachmann Times once..............

Though not as involved as yours; just some detailing, new bogie wheels, a new identity and a Geoff Haynes' weathering job.

I did a similar thing...............

On one of the firm's Jubilees (though, in my ignorance, this might not be the right tender for STURDEE).

Regards,

Tony. 

When digging through my picture library, it's curious what turns up............

A shot like this, for instance; taken quite a few years ago, it's astonishing how much progress has been made since (especially by a crack team). 

Bachmann's O4 was brand new then..............

A1s are certainly popular. How have the RTR ones measured up in the last few years? A selection........................

Bachmann was the first, in the form of 60158 ABERDONIAN. However, it wasn't long before I'd started fiddling with it!

Adding detail.

Adding more detail and getting rid of the plastic deflectors.

And replacing them with spare etched brass ones from a DJH kit (supplied in the A2/2 and A2/3 kits). 

And then taking it a bit further, detailing it more, jacking the rear end of the loco up and changing its identity. Then, Ian Rathbone weathered it.

So, when in a 'layout' situation...........

I think it certainly looks the part.

Amazingly, this still has its original motor, and it works just fine. 

How do they come out at source, then?

Bachmann has certainly produced quite a few...............

Including TORNADO, though it's a pity no attention was paid (as with 60157) to the fact that this is a roller bearing-fitted A1, or should be.

The tender's correct, however.

Graham Farish certainly noted the round ends to the Cartazzi and tender axleboxes on the N Gauge version, but still added the extra lubricator. 

I was told there was a buttock-clenching moment at Barwell when I wrote in my review that the driving wheels have two too few spokes!

Hornby certainly didn't make that mistake, and this is the best RTR model of TORNADO by far in my opinion (there are replacement, flanged pony wheels in the pack).

Gilbert Barnatt is happy to use Bachmann A1s on his current Peterborough North layout, though this shot was taken on his first Peterborough manifestation. 

Good though the RTR A1s might be, in my view there's just a certain 'something' about a kit-built one in comparison........

Though it takes a top pro-painter (in this case, Ian Rathbone) to really make the difference! 

1 hour ago, davidw said:

Not an A1 Tony, though I think that you've a photo of my A2 Bronzino I've A DJH A2 Sugar Palm too but I don't think I ve visited with that.

Good evening David,

I did photograph your DJH A2 BRONZINO on Little Bytham............

Quite a few years ago now.

Of course, Bytham has had its own resident 60539 ever since the layout was first running............

Built by me from the DJH kit, and painted by Ian Rathbone.

There must have been at least three BRONZINOs which have run on Little Bytham.............

Eric Kidd brought his modified Bachmann one along on one occasion.

You're right, I've never photographed your SUGAR PALM.............

Though another one used to run on Bytham (built by me from the DJH kit, and painted by Geoff Haynes).

On its EM frames it's now a permanent resident on Retford, no longer being my property.

Regards,

Tony. 

I've just started construction of two more DJH A1s (60153 and 60159, the first for me and the second for one of Geoff Haynes' customers. Geoff will paint both).

I hope they turn out similar to these I've built..............

What became 60126.

What became 60129.

What became 60155. 

What would become 60157.

And what became 60158. 

I cannot, at the moment, find similar shots of other DJH A1s I've built. 

I'll take shots as the two new builds progress. 

I would have thought my request to see other DJH A1s might have yielded more examples. 

17 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Normon Soloman may be a very top name in track building but it seems that even he is human. That three way has a missing check rail. Of course it may have been displaced during track cleaning or as a result of other damage.

 

 

I noticed that Tony,

The thing is it works. Whether it was there originally, I don't know, but it's unlikely to have come loose. 

One point, Norman gets cross when folk fail to spell his name correctly - it's Solomon, without an 'a'.

Regards,

Tony. 

13 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

A B1 got some way down the branch to Maldon one day.

An A1 would have been a sight when it got to the wooden viaducts.😃

Bernard

Good evening Bernard,

During the last few months of the M&GNR's existence, a B1 appeared on 'The Leicester' (something unprecedented before, the train being worked by B12s or Ivatt 4 2-6-0s).

It was this one (Bachmann/Comet/DJH/Markits/Wright). 

It was probably overweight, but who cared by then?

Regards,

Tony. 

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Unable to run on any of the GNoSR's route? Same probably applies to M&GNJ

 

Once ER had acquired it, might the London Tilbury and Southend's livery have been considered eligible? That would be truly striking.

 

Adding these would pretty much take us round the colour wheel...

Good afternoon,

Possibly, though GREAT EASTERN could never have run over the lines of that company (other than the GN/GE Joint).

Regards,

Tony. 

2 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

The bottom two look super. The top two less  so - in particular, not enough areas in dark red on ‘Great Central’ to make it look like a real GC engine. IMHO of course; other views are possible, just wrong 😑!!

Good morning,

Just for the saddos (me). 60156 and 60157 in the images shown should only have one lubricator, their being roller bearing-fitted. They should also have round covers on the Cartazzi keeps and tender axleboxes, which, though it's difficult to tell, the artist might have included. 

Bachmann never got this right when they produced a roller bearing A1 (I assume it's a Bachmann A1 which Ian Rathbone has painted so superbly).

Regards,

Tony. 

1 hour ago, PupCam said:

 

Anything but British Railways blue for me.  What is the recent fascination with that scheme on full-size locomotives?

 

 

You'll get some good imagery from a  GoPro but you won't match the perspective seen in the full-size photograph earlier for the reason mentioned.   It's the relationship of the position of objects in the scene as a function of the lens focal length (with respect to focal plane image size) that determines the perspective.   So to match the perspective (and hence the image) you need to a) match the relative focal lengths of the cameras used and b) use identical relative camera positions.

 

We need to find some nice wide angle shots of Woolmer Green so you can give it a try with the GoPro! 😀

 

Alan

 

 

Good morning Alan,

It's all fascinating stuff, but (citing your comments on perspective/focal length of lenses) I don't believe it'll be possible to exactly match prototype/model pictures. 

In a way, it doesn't matter, as long as the model scene is recognisable. As, I hope, it is on Little Bytham.

Regards,

Tony. 

1 hour ago, NZRedBaron said:

Hello there, Tony and company.

I was wandering around the internet earlier (yes, a dangerous past time, I know), when I came across a picture I've seen a few times over the years; it was of the four Peppercorn A1's that were named for constituent companies of the LNER- 60147 North Eastern, 60156 Great Central, 60157 Great Eastern, and 60161 North British- painted up in the express passenger liveries of the aforementioned companies; apparently as part of an official proposal by a manager in BR's Eastern Region.

Have you ever seen it? And if you have, what do you think of the proposed liveries?

Good morning,

I haven't seen the picture you mention.

I believe Ian Rathbone once painted up a model of an A1 (GREAT CENTRAL?) in full pre-Grouping regalia.

The only one of the company-named A1s I don't have a model of is NORTH BRITISH, because I never saw it. The other three, of course, are in Brunswick green.  

I think it would have been splendid had the proposal been carried out (GREAT NORTHERN, too).

Odd that an A1 was not called GREAT NORTH OF SCOTLAND (too small a constituent company, and too long a nameplate I suppose?). 

Regards,

Tony

5 hours ago, PupCam said:

It would be worth a try although you really need a surface silvered mirror to avoid degradation and distortion through the glass of a normal mirror.   But, as I say, worth a play on a wet Wednesday morning.

 

 

 

Let's arrange for your next visit, accompanied by the 'bear', on a wet Wednesday next spring. It'll be fun to experiment.

Regards,

Tony. 

10 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Tony I think the other thing that's wrong with the Q4 is it has the wrong firebox shape. A while ago I spent some time studying Q4s as I have a part built Millholme model that I've been building for quite some time. I think the version with the type of splashers shown on the model above should have a waisted firebox. The straight sided firebox version had a long O4 type splasher covering the rear 3 driving wheels on each side which was also provided in the kit. Clearly this is not going to be altered on the model above without a substantial rebuild.

 

On mine I've modified the firebox to suit.

 

Andrew

Good morning Andrew,

There are probably many things wrong with the model in question. I have to say, it's typical of many I see which come up for sale after the owner(s) have died. That is, with little or no provenance, with no idea who the builder/painter was and often they're not particularly accurate or good runners (though this one does run well). I doubt if many are actual 'commissions', but are bought 'as seen' so to speak. Many owners (up to the day they die) seem to have been 'blissfully ignorant' of any shortcomings in their models - a situation matched by the models' new owners in many cases! 

Is this more the Q4 manifestation you were thinking of?

I can't recall who brought this.

Perhaps it's easier to represent them as rebuilt into Q1 tanks............

I've certainly photographed plenty of those!

Regards,

Tony. 

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

It was the pointwork that made me wonder if it was a telephoto lens. The points on the real photo look a little bit compressed compared to the model. On the model the points appear to be longer, yet we know they are an accurate copy of the actual trackwork. The angles and curves through the points just look different to me. The only explanation I could think of is that the perspective had been distorted, as you can get with a telephoto lens.

It could be a (short) telephoto lens, Tony.

Who took the picture, I have no idea, and I doubt (seeing that it was exposed at least 66 years ago) he/she is still alive to tell us what equipment was used. 

Regards,

Tony. 

10 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

There is something puzzling about those last comparison photos. I have been trying to put my finger on why the comparison view is difficult to capture on the model. I wonder if it is down to the relationship if the signals, buildings and embankments in the background.

 

In one view, the signal is in front of the booking office. In the other it is to one side of it. Was the real photo taken from a position further back, perhaps with a telephoto lens, which distorts the perspective?

 

Good morning Tony,

I cannot get the camera into exactly the same relative position for several reasons. One, it looks like the photographer of the prototype was standing on Marsh Bridge, and my camera is just too big to be able to do that. There's also the backscene 'sky' behind the bridge which also prevents my sitting the camera in 'the same place'. Which means, as you suggest, the full-sized photograph was taken from further back, though probably with a standard lens. And, also the 'opposite' physics rears its head - huge prototype, little camera/little model, huge camera. Those who use smaller cameras (not a half-brick-sized digital SLR) might do better, but I cannot get on with them.

When Jesse Sim is over next year, I'll ask him to bring his tiny Nikon (about the size of two OXO cubes) and see what we can get with that, though it's very wide-angle.

As I say, those who don't model an actual prototype have it 'easier' in some ways, but not in all. 

Regards,

Tony. 

12 minutes ago, 1471SirFrederickBanbury said:

Why, you could use a periscope lens!  A couple were made by Clearwater features for the production of Thomas the Tank Engine, which allowed them to get a 35mm cine camera to get quite up close and personal with their gauge 1 trains, while also using a special camera rig to move smoothly for tracking shots.  A watch of the second series of the television series will show how versatile and able the system truly is.  I know one person how tried to make one for personal use, but I'll have to find the link to that later.

Two questions.

What would a periscope lens (whatever that is) cost? How would one go about acquiring one, even if one could afford it? 

Clearwater must be a professional visual production company; all I'm doing is mucking about with a very good Nikon camera and lenses. Hardly in the same league?

Regards,

Tony. 

Three friends popped over today, bringing with them some interesting models............

A Bachmann BR Standard Five, bought off eBay (I should have used the other hole in the tender drawbar). 

A beautiful runner.

We couldn't run this Wills Royal Scot (another eBay purchase, builder/painter unknown) because it's EM gauge, and merely propped up on OO track.

A Millholme Q4, from the estate of a deceased modeller (the drive is on the wrong side and will be altered).

And a Nu-Cast J21, again from another deceased's estate. 

Thanks chaps for a, yet another, splendid day! 

4 hours ago, PJT said:

 

A DJH A1, following your appeal, Tony.  I didn't build it, but I did spend some time repairing and caring for it.  It was a non-runner purchased from Hattons around 18 months ago, with gummed-up Portescap, broken tender coupling and electrical connection (it picks up on the LH loco wheels and RH tender wheels), plus a couple of detatched details.  In repaired condition, it is immensely strong, smooth and a delight to run.  I'm very fond of it.

 

I've also added a photo of the box label and original build invoice that came with it - eyebrow-raising prices from back in the mists of time.  I'm completely ignorant when it comes to the names of the builder on the label and seller on the invoice, S. Hill and Scarfedale Models.

 

It doesn't have the lean-in of the upper cabsides that you often refer to, but it's so neatly finished I don't want to mess around with it.

Pete T.

 

 

   

Thanks for that, Pete,

It looks well-made and nicely-painted.

My BOIS ROUSSEL (built by me and painted by Ian Rathbone) is also a DJH kit. 

I saw her many times as a 'spotter, usually on prestige trains - which I've tried to replicate in model form.........

On a Pullman service on Stoke Summit. 

She lost her electric lighting quite early on.

On the 'Queen of Scots' on Little Bytham.

And also on 'The Yorkshire Pullman' on Bytham.

You're wise to leave the cab as it is. The rake-in has to be done at source during construction. 

Regards,

Tony. 

6 hours ago, stewartingram said:

I have an original Hornby B17, to which I added the Crownline(?)  B2 conversion. Even now, it is slightly unfinished, but I take issue with the poor runner statement. With its whitemetal NE tender, it really is a superb runner, one of my best. And the slow speed running is also ajoy with my Wireless World design of PWM controller. Yes, my preference is for loco drive, but I won't condemn tender drive if it works.

Good evening Stewart,

My 'poor' comment was also to do with the visual mechanics of the original Hornby B17, especially the (non-powered) loco chassis.

Granted, this (nearer) original chassis seems to have lived in a barn for a decade, but, even if it were pristine, I'd still describe it as 'poor'. Wrong bogie wheels, crude driving wheels (are the centre drivers half-flanged?) and ex-battleship valve gear. Not only that, I've seen these 'push-along' type chassis locked solid as the tender-drive, roaring like a bull, tries its best to move along.

Speaking of tender-drive...............

Surely we've moved beyond this sort of thing.

Regards,

Tony. 

It's always fascinating (at least to me) when I ask my computer to 'search' for images.

When I wrote the review of Hornby's B17/5s, this came up............

A 1945 image of the prototype.

And Hornby's slightly later representation. 

I think a good stab at it. 

Please respect copyright restrictions on the prototype image.