Tony Wright

I've been fascinated by the many learned comments of late regarding various lenses and their attributes. Thank you for all of them, and if you'd like to make some more..................... This evening, I've tried a few shots using the 24mm Nikon lens on the front of the Nikon Df, with these results........... Class A4 60010 DOMINION OF CANADA (Pro-Scale/Wright/Rathbone) rushes through Bytham on the morning fast Newcastle (Goddard/Houlden/Wright). Both shots have had a little cropping. In the shot above, the lamp standard is out of focus, as is the nearer end of the BCK. Neither of these bother me; the eye is invited to look beyond. Two more, though with no manipulation or cropping............. In both these I've had the camera further away from the principal subject matter in order to show how wide Little Bytham is (the 24mm lens being ideal for this). Layouts are usually 'measured' in length, but width (for accuracy) is just as important in my view, especially if an actual prototype is modelled. At least some foreground cropping will be necessary in the two shots above. More indication of Bytham's width is seen here as Class A2/2 60501 COCK O' THE NORTH (DJH/scratch/Wright/Rathbone) heads the morning York/Hull express (Wright). Some foreground cropping has taken place, and a little to the left. In this sort of view, I place the camera about a foot from the front of the loco, with the focus set to two and a half feet, leaving F.22 to give me the necessary depth of field. In this view, I'm a bit nearer, with the focus set to one foot, meaning the background loses some focus, but I don't think that matters. The schoolboy trainspotters are just about enough in focus, and the B1 (Bachmann/Comet/Wright) hauling a Kings Cross Grantham express (Geary/Wright) certainly is; sharp enough to reveal its leaning-back cab (occasionally prototypical). Finally.................... Two shots of B12/3 61553 (Coopercraft/Wright) leaving Little Bytham with a Peterborough-Grantham 'Parly' (Geary/Wright). Some foreground cropping has been necessary, but the full width is shown. The 24mm Nikon lens isn't so suitable if a close-up of a loco is required, but for 'layout' shots, I think it's excellent. Like all Nikon lenses, it's incredibly sharp.

Thanks Captain, The model had been previously weathered by its (original?) owner, and I, using prototype photos for reference, added to it (the weeping from the regulator gland is very common on these locos, as are brown deposits around the smokebox). If I had a use for it, I'd definitely build a replacement Comet chassis, but that would be way beyond the brief. Regards, Tony.

Good afternoon Martin, This one has all the 'attributes' of the original split-chassis 'nastiness' (here I am weathering the motion). After I'd cleaned the crud of decades off the wheels, it ran, but with all the quietness of a chain saw! A drop of oil quietened it to a pitch not damaging to one's hearing, then the quartering went on the rear axle under load. A bead of superglue on the inner plastic muff's end seemed to work, but this type of thing is all too common with this awful mechanism - a split-chassis which literally splits! Bachmann perpetuated this nonsense when it took over the range (the split-chassis B1s and V2s being particularly notorious in my experience). So, the question must be asked, why did I bother? Because it shows that with a bit of perseverance, something really cheap can be sort of 'resurrected'. Granted, it'll never be as quiet as anything produced today RTR (though it's on a par with some kit-built locos I've had through my hands), but it will run. Years ago, there were two exhibition layouts where locos using this type of mechanism ran. I think one represented Marsden and another a viaduct on the Lancs/Yorks border. Entering the show, one knew immediately if those layouts were present, especially if a train were double-headed! Regards, Tony.

As part of my series of articles for BRM on 'budget modelling', I've just completed fiddling with an old Palitoy/Mainline BR Standard 4 4-6-0 75XXX. Considering the initial outlay was merely £5.00, and it still runs................. Not bad?

Pleased to report that the Gibson Stanier Mogul has now sold. Just two to go!

Good morning Tony, I think this is the one........... Ex-Charwelton, it definitely has a vac' tank (which is staying). I believe it was built for the late Stephen Gradidge by Alan Hammet, originally supplied in LNER condition. I also believe you acquired it, and repainted/weathered it into BR condition - as is seen above. It's a really lovely loco in all departments (the only thing I've done is to add the lubricator drive). It's a privilege now to own it. Regards, Tony.

Good morning, I concede to your expertise, and I think I know what you're getting at. However, the difference is slight, and more than made up for by the lower picture being of far greater use because it's all in focus. Regards, Tony.

More on budget modelling........ This morning I was given free access to 'rummage' through drawers of 'dud' locos in the Grantham Model Shop (thanks Chris), the intention being to 'resurrect' some 'poorly' models, to be featured in future BRM articles. And, the result? All of this lot for a mere £20.00! All of them did no more than 'twitch' when power was applied, but they all run now (the non-motorised A3 chassis' valve gear will be transferred to the one that has a motor). In fact, all that was needed was a good clean, adjustment and oil to all of them. Naturally, none of them runs as well as more modern RTR examples, but, at a tiny fraction of the cost, they'll suit many when completed (the finished items will be offered as prizes in BRM). Grantham's model shop is well worth a visit. Not only are the prices of new items competitive, there are also shelves loaded with bits and pieces for 'modellers'. The staff know what they're talking about as well.

An interesting comparison.............. Am I escaping the 'laws of physics here'? Two shots, taken of the same model, at the same distance with the same camera and the same lens (a Nikon 18-35, set at 35), the only difference being the different apertures. Aperture at F.8, the point of focus being the centre driving wheel. Aperture at F.32, with the same point of focus. If, according to the laws of physics, the second image suffers because of its smaller (smallest) aperture, then I can't see it, other than in the top one the loco is slightly lighter - I could lighten the bottom one to be the same). In fact, the top image is really useless. I'll continue using the smallest aperture possible. I've said before, I rather was baffled by physics. The only really interesting thing in my physics textbook (by Nelkon) was a picture of a 'Nelson' Class battleship underneath the Forth Bridge, though this never came up in lessons. By the way, the loco is one of only three I still have for sale in the Peter Lawson collection (the 82XXX sold this evening). Built from a Gibson kit and a good runner, at £150.00 it's quite a bit less than its component parts!

Glad the 75XXX arrived safely; I hope you are pleased with it. I was never very good at physics, but I know what works photographically. I'm not saying I understand how it works, just how to get reasonable results. You've followed a misconception, by the way. My Nikon is a Micro lens, not a Macro. The difference is enormous. With the Micro, not only does its minimum aperture stop down to much smaller than 'normal', it will focus on anything from literally inches away to infinite. No Macro lens will do that. Ever since I can remember, for taking model railway photographs, I've always used the smallest aperture (down to smaller than F.64 in my medium format days!). 'Escaping' the laws of physics or not, I hope the results have spoken for themselves; spoken enough for my making part of my living from it. Regards, Tony.

One final point (from me) on stacking. Andy York once tried to explain the process to me, but I found it far too complicated. I know the camera can be programmed to do it for the photographer, but I much prefer to 'fly by the seat of my pants' when taking pictures. I set all the parameters before taking a shot, the camera does nothing 'automatically'. In my experience, by using high-quality (and, therefore, rather expensive) lenses which will stop down to much smaller apertures than 'normal', then there is absolutely no need for stacking.

Very impressive John, Did you show me how you did it at one show? I took a picture of the same station building from the opposite direction. I'm not sure that having the distant trees in focus as well would have been beneficial to this image. The same is so for the wagon in the background; it's merely peripheral to the main subject. Anyway........... If a lens stops down to F40 (Nikon Micro), is there any need for stacking? Granted, the trackwork in the immediate foreground could be rendered in focus by stacking, but (in true 'artistic' fashion) by having the foreground slightly 'fuzzy', one is invited to look through to the principal subject matter. I agree about cropping, but if the original image size is very big, then the deterioration in quality is minimised. Regards, Tony.

Good morning Rob, No sun can illuminate Little Bytham, so the distortion can't be due to that. In fairness, I think it's the incredibly tight perspective in the shot in question which has accentuated the impression. Pictures of the same train in not-so-tight perspective................ Are not quite so revealing. That's my original Kitmaster/Lima DELTIC, by the way; the one I dropped, smashing it to smithereens! The two A3s are SE Finecast/Wright/Haynes creations. The replacement NRM/Bachmann DELTIC is far superior (even better after Geoff Haynes weathered it). Carriages built from metal (mainly Tony Geary's work) aren't anywhere near so 'bendy'. Tight perspective shots can illustrate all sorts of anomalies........... Regards, Tony.

Good evening Phil, I do see the same thing. I'm hesitant to make an objective assessment, but I'll try. The zoomed images represent only a part of the whole image. For example............ Here's the full-frame image I took of the A1 on the Pullman. Shot as a Tif, its original size is over 14 megabytes (ideal for paper reproduction, but too big to put on RMweb - in fact, the size of this has had to be reduced and changed into a jpeg in order that I can post it on here). What I previously posted is probably only a quarter of the overall image, which means, posted at the same size, the resolution is only a quarter of what it could be (I could be talking boll*cks - I probably am!), so three quarters of the definition is lost. What this overall shot does show is the remarkable depth of field achieved by the Sigma lens at minimum aperture. The camera was placed a twitch over two feet from the loco's front, with the focus distance on the lens set to almost five feet. Which means that everything from the slip immediately in front of the loco to the 'Bytham' sign on the end wall is in focus - near 25'! As I said, who needs stacking? 'Cheap' though the lens might have been, it's still damned good! In the same way that the resolution of a medium format 6 x 9 transparency (its sharpness) is going to be better than that of a 35mm transparency (all other factors being equal). Any shot I post on here is, by definition, of low-resolution, especially prototype shots which are subject to copyright. Though they might look crisp on a monitor screen, when printed, the images are made of Lego! I hope this makes sense. Regards, Tony.

Good afternoon Zach, What a cracking job. Well done! Regards, Tony.

Good afternoon Mike, Indeed, a work of art, by the artist Norman Solomon; for whom I wish all the best for in his new home Down Under. Regards, Tony.

Model railway photography can be a hobby within a hobby (though I made it part of my later career). Though I no longer earn a great deal from taking model railway pictures, I still try to 'push the boundaries' with regard to the images I take. Such an opportunity occurred a few days ago........ Our younger son is moving house, and to make the whole process easier, he's been dropping items off with us in the interim. One of those items was a large metal camera case full of cameras and lenses. I'd given these to him some years ago, their being surplus/superseded, but he no longer has use for them (any pictures he needs for his work he now takes on a phone!). Rummaging through the box, I found two lenses of possible use to me; a Nikon prime 24mm lens and a Sigma 18-50 zoom (normally, I'd only use Nikon's own lenses - those made in Japan - but I think the latter was a 'cheap' purchase which he made). So, I've tried a few 'experiments'................... This is the Nikon 24mm on the front of my Nikon Df. With a minimum aperture of only F22, I thought depth of field might be an issue. However............. The depth of field is incredible. Granted, it's more suited to an 'overall' view, but the resolution is tremendous. I can't explain how the ex-NER Dynamometer has ended up in Bytham's loading dock. Now............ With the Sigma on the front (set at 50mm), the principal subject matter is further away, and, with an aperture of F36, depth of field should be more than adequate. Which it definitely is; definite enough to reveal how 'bendy' Bachmann's Mk.1s have become (this has nothing to do with lens aberrations). This is a tighter crop, but I think it 'works'. With the Nikon 24mm lens on the front, I took some more Down fast shots, in some cases quite tightly cropped.......... 60111 (SE Finecast/Wright/Haynes) on a Down express (a tight crop). 60156 (DJH/Wright/Rathbone) on the Down Flying Scotsman (not as tight a crop). 60516 (DJH/Wright/Rathbone) on a Down express (almost full-frame). Apart from some horizontal cropping, this is a full-frame image. Seen from the other side, 92042 (Model Loco/Wright/Haynes) heads a Down fast goods (another tight crop). It's a lens I'll certainly use a lot of in future. As I will the Sigma.............. 60014 (Wills/scratch/Wright/Rathbone) dashes through Bytham on the Down Tees-Tyne Pullman (a slight crop). And, 60114 (DJH/Geary) on the Down Queen of Scots (a tight crop). Who needs stacking? In all the images, I set the parameters, nothing on the camera being used in Auto-mode. Anyone else tried any photo-experiments on the model railways?

Happy to report that the second Crab has sold, and the O4 diesel shunter. Just the Fairburn 2-6-4T, 82XXX, Stanier Mogul, Stanier 2-6-4T and three carriages left now!

One of the Crabs has also sold! Don't forget, as well as helping a distressed family, 10% of all sales goes to CRUK.

Glad you're delighted with it. She looks entirely at home. And, thanks for the cheque. I had another correspondence from someone else who's received a loco today, and he's just as delighted. These 'Lawson locos' are really rather good; not only do they look natural, but they run well, too (something not always evident in kit-built locos). Obviously, I'll check them before sending (Graham Nicholas will have checked them as well), and give as honest an assessment as I can of how they run. Out of hundreds of sales thus far, across numerous collections, only one has been returned. Despite my telling the purchaser that the loco in question needed 3' radius curves as a minimum (big, outside cylinders, bogie, pony, tender, etc) he bought it, then complained that it wouldn't go round his Hornby Setrack! What can I say!? Thanks for letting us all know. Regards, Tony.

Thanks Tony, I think I put those on as well, though not so prominently. They're just about visible in this shot. Regards, Tony.

Pleased to report that the kit-built Autocoach has sold. There could well be others..............

Having purchased the two 4Fs from the Peter Lawson collection, I mused as to how many 4Fs I have now............ Representing pre-War days, this example was scratch-built by the late Brian Lee some 60+ years ago. As a tangible memory of a friend, I wanted something of Brian's so bought this. It didn't really run, so I rebuilt the frames, made new rods, installed a new drive and new wheels, and now it's a lovely runner. I found myself in a bit of a dilemma; should I change so much? The old Zenith motor (that's showing its age!) was long gone, the bearings were worn and the Romford drivers were only nickel silver tyred on one side. In the end I think (I hope) I've done the right thing, and I'm sure Brian would have approved. This was a 'Leighford locomotive', built/painted by Rob Kinsey using an old Wills kit on a scratch-built chassis and towing a K's Midland tender. I weathered it. I've since re-motored it. It's representative of early-BR days. An unusual working seen here, as 44604 has charge of an engineers' train, while 43909 passes on an East Midlands-Lynn three-set. 44604 has a modified Airfix body on a scratch-built chassis, and tows a Fowler high-sided tender. It's the work of the late John Horton and Rob Kinsey. 43909 is a modified/detailed/renumbered/weathered Bachmann 4F (my work). Another of my 'fiddled with' Bachmann 4Fs has the same three-set as above. Some years ago I wrote an article on building two South Eastern Finecast 4Fs, and here's one of them. The one with RH drive, coal-rail tender and a Stanier chimney. It's seen working a Lynn-Nottingham three-set. Here's the other one - LH drive and a plain tender (and a fat pipe sticking out from the base of the smokebox). It's working a summer Saturday extra from the East Midlands to the Norfolk coast. Here's the pair I bought from the Peter Lawson collection, now at work on Little Bytham. 44063 was the only loco from the collection I've had to do any work on in order to get it to run entirely to my satisfaction (the rest run really well). Just a few adjustments to the drive, and now she's super-sweet. I fiddled with a Hornby 4F, but was never really satisfied with it, though I fitted a Stanier chimney. I eventually gave it away to a friend. Two of Bytham's 4Fs are derived from modified Airfix bodies running on South Eastern Finecast frames, and they're seen here as 44519 (with Stanier chimney) on a westbound goods waits for 44412 to pass on a typical three-set. The line was single from Little Bytham Junction to Saxby Junction. I built this ancient ACRO 4F just prior to Covid, fitting a South Eastern Finecast chassis. Really something of a museum piece, but interesting none-the-less. Do you think Bytham has enough 4Fs now? The class was never totally superseded on the route by the influx of new Ivatt 4MTs......... I'm happy to have plenty of both types..................

Good afternoon Chas, I don't think it's Chester. It might be marks on the print, but is there OHL equipment? Crewe then, but where? What's interest is the loco carrying the early-style of the later BR device, with the lion facing the wrong way on this side. So, the date (with electric warning flashes), 1959/'60? Regards, Tony.

Happy to report that the two BR Standard 5 4-6-0s have been sold and the BR Standard 4 4-6-0!