Tony Wright

Mike, I'm glad you found the piece on the USA Tank of use. I'm sure the RTR version will be excellent, but I don't think the kit manufacturers think too much of magazines bringing out models which duplicate their range, and then expect them to advertise in the publication. I assume (from what I've been told), this is a model generated by a publication.

You're right Jonathan, and forgive me for getting muddled up. it is an (a) RTO, and will run with the RF. I have an (a) RTP but that was modified by Tony Geary from Mike Trice or Comet parts. As for other published sources, have you investigated the Campling volumes/

It might be - and we'll do it together!

As a prelude to helping a good friend with his modelling, I've started 'improving' a few more Hornby Gresleys by the addition of Mike Trice or Kemilway sides. The first pictures show a Dia. 298 under conversion and the second a Trice Pantry Third just painted. The third picture shows a Trice RF conversion (which has appeared before). The fourth shows the mods necessary for the interior of the 298. The friend will be reporting on his progress in the not-to-distant future.

Just out of possible interest, and since it was mentioned recently in a Wow Factor thread, members might be interested to know that the 'famous' Stoke Summit from Wolverhampton MRC is shortly to be put up for sale on ebay. This is obviously ex-stock (though a lot of diesel-period stuff will be for sale as well, independently). So, just a few pictures to show you again what it was like 'watching the trains go by' many years ago.

Sorry Tom, I missed this. 'sight shields'? My terminology for such items is 'cinder guards', though the more learned might know the exact description. They're on the SE Finecast etch, and are easy enough to solder on, though as for sticking little bits of 'Plastiglaze' in, I don't think so.

I hope the Members' Day goes well and that all who attend have a good time. Something of possible interest........... Last week I posted an image of my complete (almost) DMR K1. A full report will be appearing in BRM before long..... Here she is again, on pick-up duties, running-in. I've yet to fit a March shedplate and I'm puzzling still as to how to complete the valance lining (no curve on the transfer sheet matches the profile beneath the cab). An N2 (Airfix body on Comet frames) scoots by light engine en route to the big city after shopping at Donny. This is the only way I can justify an N2, or a C12 but, probably not, an N5 - even though a couple were just down the road at Essendine. A March K1 might be a bit of a rarity but they were common enough at New England. With Hornby's K1 scheduled for the future (but when?), yet another blow is delivered to the kit manufacturers. I also recently showed an image of a B1 with new frames, and here it is with everything painted. Strangely, it's on the MR/M&GNR, because 61159 actually did work the 'Leicester' on several occasions towards the end. Previously, the largest 4-6-0 on the route would have been a B12/3 (one I've yet to build), but weight restrictions appear not to have mattered too much towards the end.

It looks spot on to me.

Mike, I have to say I found the SE Finecast N5 chimney all right, but maybe I wasn't being discriminatory enough. Shown below are the in-build pictures of the SE Finecast N5 I put together some five years ago - the first independent build, before the etched overlays were available. The last shot (which has appeared before - my apologies), shows two N5s. The nearer loco is built from a Millholme kit and the farther one the SE Finecast one, now painted. Certainly, the taper on the Millholme chimney is far more pronounced - much more like the prototype, so I don't think you're being too picky in that respect. Does anyone know what happened to Millholme? It'll be interesting to see what others think.

I entirely agree, Mick, and your lining skills on the NER Atlantic are to be admired. I've used the HMRS linings in the past (I suppose as an ex-HMRS President I should endorse the products) but I find the ordinary waterslide transfer lining easier to 'push around' into place. The A3 above was lined with the HMRS 'Pressfix' GWR/BR express passenger lining, which came out OK (though I bottled out of lining the valance), but I didn't find it as easy as the waterslide sort. Still, at over 30 years old (a Wills kit on a scratch-built chassis towing a Jamieson GNR tender), as a 'layout loco' it just about passes muster. I commissioned the bespoke nameplates from Kings Cross Models, and they were supplied in red. Quite wrong, I imagine. What's gone wrong with the bit beneath, I haven't a clue! However, compared with what one now gets from Hornby in terms of lining, it isn't in the same class. I mixed & matched this A3 to give my 60102 in its last years on the GC. Visually better it might be, but the much older DONCASTER runs sweeter and is far more powerful. All the above said, a decent pro-paint job with bow pen lining still stands out, as shown by Ian Rathbone's work on my Crownline V2. Ian, and the Larry Goddards of this world can produce such excellence but the mastery of superb painting is the province of a select few in my opinion. Unlike loco building, which, given good tuition, is well within the compass of a great number, as long as they're prepared to try. Finally, as promised, a note about the K3 cabs. This picture shows a comparison between the original Bachmann cab and a SE Finecast one for the earlier pattern. Note the differences in style and size. If nothing else it shows how just renumbering Bachmann K3s to represent the earlier-build examples is a bit naff, and observe the difference in the driving wheel sizes - the one on the right being much nearer the size required. Here's a close-up of the Bachmann K3 modification referred to earlier. The new cab has been pushed as far forward as it will go and the fit is at least as good as Bachmann's original. It merely sits on the footplate and is held in place by a screw. What it does show is the extent of the footplate to the rear of the cab, which is probably a bit too much. That said, I still think this is a better way than moving the cab back and filling any gaps. Note also the better sized driving wheels, even though more metal had to be removed from beneath the footplate. What's also highly apparent is that whenever I light my work with 2,000 Watts and use a camera costing more than a large number of second-hand cars, all the 'warts & all' are there for even the myopic to chuckle at. Still, as a 'layout loco' I think it works. It certainly works better mechanically than the Bachmann original and it's something different. How it was all done will be in BRM in the near future.

What a splendid piece of work, Roy. And, so much the better for being all yours.

I don't know how the Hornby Fowler 2-6-4T ended up out of place in the previous post, but the lining on that is exquisite.

Many thanks for all the kind comments. With regard to chuckling Larry, it was more of an observation with reference to those who can, and do, rather than mocking those who can't, but try. I'm with you 100% with regard to folk having a go, and, like you, would never poke fun at those who try. It's those who stubbornly refuse to have a go that I have no time for, as I've said many times. And, I've had a go with a bow pen and I don't think I'll ever master it. Thus, my lining with such a device is inferior to my lining with transfers. Speaking of transfer lining (again) I've enclosed one or two more pictures. This B16/3 is of great antiquity (it even has Hamblings wheels!). I made it from a Nu-Cast kit and scratch-built a chassis for it. It's lined with KEMCO transfers and the weathering is dry-brushed. When you use a camera which takes no prisoners, the results are cruel! This is another piece of antiquity - another Nu-Cast product, this time on an original (incorrect) Comet set of B1 frames. It too is KEMCO-lined, but to speed things up I used a spare B1 tender - not Bachmann but Mainline? Or Replica? The dry-brush weathering technique was applied, which promptly started to remove the lining. Have I saved it from a complete mess? If not, I've lived with it for many years. Lining professionally done is a joy to behold, as illustrated by Ian Rathbone's work on my London Road K2. Look closely, the cream line is present as well. Folk mentioned proprietary lining, and, originally, Hornby just used red and cream, though it was beautifully-applied. Now look what they're doing. This is fully up there with the best a professional could do. Bachmann did the same with regard to simplified lining. They now do the full three colours, though I wish proprietary weathering were slightly less (or more) than a squirt of dirty thinners. Phil, by the way, the van was built, painted and weathered by Rob Davey. I don't build freight stock.

Having promised a picture of the fit of the SE Finecast cab to the Bachmann footplate, my apologies - I'll try and do one tomorrow. As mentioned, I lined the K3 using Modelmasters' BR mixed-traffic lining. Having got the painting and lining bug, I decided to complete work, some of which has been pending for over three years. As is well known, Little Bytham is the result of teamwork - all of us capable of doing something practical for the project. Years ago, Ian Wilson built this Wills C12. If my memory serves (and it serves less well as time progresses), it had a white metal lump for a chassis. This was naturally discarded, and I built a SE Finecast etched replacement. But the body remained a bit unfinished and the painting was just plain black. So, I detailed it, painted and lined it (yesterday and today) and here is the result. As with the K3, I used the Modelmasters product, but a new pack. Half the corners split (the grey/red lining separating) when applying them, resulting in extreme frustration and waste. Not only that, the registration between the corners and the straight bits was 'out of kilter' in some cases. Though I'm reasonably happy with how straight my lining is, close inspection will reveal discrepancies where the straight lining meets the corners in some cases. The red/red boiler band lining also separated frustratingly. This is the first time this has ever happened to me with Modelmasters lining. The new sheet was out of my stock (about five years old). Does it have a shelf life? It's been kept in a drawer, out of sunlight and in a centrally-heated room. It's quite a puzzle. In the past I've been entirely happy with it. Of course, proper painters like Larry Goddard will just chuckle - he can do things correctly - but I can only line 'professionally' on scrap. The minute I get near a model proper, the bow pen just blobs, and I give up. For his Christmas present in 2010, I built a Craftsman C12 for Ian. And, it's taken till today for me to finish it. The usual Halfords' satin black acrylic aerosol was applied, but this one's been lined with KEMCO lining - the sheet dating from 1993! So, no deterioration there. I prefer the Modelmasters because the corners are bigger and you can line a cabside with just four corners. The KEMCO corners are too small for this and one has to add straight bits. Though the lining didn't disintegrate, there is the occasional discrepancy between corners and straight bits which is visible in the picture. Also visible (I hope) is just how much crisper the etched-brass kit is than the rather 'lumpen' white metal alternative. I also painted and lined the K1 I've finished recently. This one had the first Modelmasters sheet for lining, so no disintegration. There is still an issue with the registration at the corners, and I've yet to line the valance. All these models await the finishing touch from Tom Foster. It's an interesting thought, but those lining discrepancies could have been entirely removed with Photoshop.

Interesting Jonathan. I found the cab sat better if pushed as far forward as it would go, leaving an extended bit of footplate behind. I'll post some comparative pictures later on.

Thanks Tom, but this mustn't turn into a mutual appreciation scenario. It was indeed the same K3, still in its (note no possessive/contracted apostrophe!) brass tender/cab form you saw last Friday. With regard to K3s, if you want a K3 with right-hand drive and the earlier-style cab, then modifying the Bachmann original (with a GS flared tender) is the easiest option. Who knows, for the '30s it could have the original Darlington-style cab with NE-type low windows. Every K3 cab style, from GN original through to the Bachmann type is available on the SE Finecast etched fret (the cab roof, other than the GN-style, is a separate casting). Changing the drive side is a doddle - just move the vacuum ejector, fill a few holes and drill a few more, and move the reversing lever across. The replacement cabs fit very easily (even though there's a little bit more footplate exposed at the rear because the Bachmann cab is a bit longer) and it adds a bit of real character to the model. I suppose, for GNR and early LNER modellers, one could use the tallest GNR cab and fit a taller chimney and dome. Maybe someone might report on that in the future. Over to you, Mr King!

Neil, Splendid lining by the way - beyond my abilities, even in the larger scale. I'm delighted you find Little Bytham inspirational, and, by association, Peterborough North. It's good that ECML prototype modelling is to the fore, though, architecturally, Little Bytham won't be in the same class as PN. Yes, Ian Wilson and I are working on some interesting models of the buildings and footbridge at LB, but, even though the modest buildings are far less grand overall than those at Peterborough, the architectural modelling on PN is peerless in comparison. Still, the LB buildings might appear as kits eventually, fully in the Prototype Models' tradition. Watch this space.

Something seems to have gone wrong with where I've placed this response, though I hope this works.... Elders and betters? I'm certainly flattered if you consider me to be in this category. And, it's certainly true that I've bodged a few loco down the years, some of which I hope no longer exist. I'm completely with you in your striving 'to reduce the compromises and practice further to attain higher standards', but, though I find your desire to build the unique B3/3 laudable (I never did build it myself, though I did contemplate it years ago), rather like the joke about the yokel who when asked directions to a certain destination said 'I wouldn't start from here'. I find your ingenuity staggering but, like I once said to Graeme King, 'I think you're mad!' I also find your standard of workmanship incredibly high and cannot argue with your desire to make something yourself, but I honestly believe you're making things harder for yourself than if you actually built something from scratch - in 'Plastikard' if you're happier working in that medium than metal. Etched frames seem to be a splendid way to go forward, for I'm sure you know that, despite fitting the right-sized wheels, the loco wheelbase on a B3 is different from a B1 - 6' 6" + 5' 11" + 7' 3" + 8' 3" for the B3 and 6' 3" + 5' 6" + 7' 3" + 9' 0" for the B1. Though one might 'fudge' the bogie dimensions, the greater gap between the centre and rear coupled wheels of the B1 (giving a far better ashpan arrangement) does rather spring out. I know the cabside windows are smaller on the B3/3 than on a B1, with more 'land' either side (like the A2 arrangement) but how have you removed the rake-in at the top of the A2 cab, where the window panel is angled in to clear the loading gauge at the eaves? Such ingenuity and craftsmanship astounds me - I'd find scratch-building much easier. Could you not have used a Bachmann K3 cab, with the 'lazy S' cut off? I have one spare if you'd like it. Nothing of the above should be taken as destructive criticism, for, as I've stated many times before, it's only through guys like you who are prepared to make things for themselves that the craftsmanship element of the hobby will be carried on. Professional craftsmen there'll always be (and those who'll pay for their work) but the 'real' modellers, in my opinion, are the likes of yourself - and those I've met relatively recently (they know who they are) - who actually make things for themselves. So, despite my 'observations', keep up the good work (teacher head on here!) and I look forward to seeing the finished results. If other examples are anything to go on, it'll be splendid!

Phil, I can't remember the source of the lamps, but they seem to look fine on Tom's Pacifics. They're still a twitch too big, but weathered down they'll look even better. In comparison, Springside's BR lamps are gross. Young Foster's abilities abilities seem to go from strength to strength with regard to his weathering techniques. Though not unique in his methods (the processes have been discussed already on this site), I think the effect he achieves with basically RTR models is quite outstanding - apparently Tim Shackleton's DVDs and books have been his guidance, together with hands-on help from elsewhere. However, like all good 'students', he now does things entirely for himself. And the even better news is this - we're now right into horse-trading. I help him with his model kit-building, re-gauging wheels, tweaking stuff for best running, etc, and he's doing weathering for me. Right now he has a V2, but a pair of C12s and a K1 will soon be ready. What could be better - symbiotic modelling. The fact that he's a charming and generous young man should also be acknowledged. Though synergy in modelling is to be encouraged, so too is doing things for yourself. With this in mind, here's my Bachmann K3 modification all but complete, a full report on which will be appearing before too long in BRM. It appeared in BRM originally a couple of years ago and consists of a Bachmann donor, replacement SE Finecast cab, replacement SE Finecast chassis (retaining the Bachmann valve gear and cylinders) and London Road Models GNR tender. It results in an unusual K3 manifestation, but is also greatly improved by having the right-sized driving wheels, with much-enhanced performance - no characteristic Bachmann K3 wobbly-running (though one Bachmann K3 I have runs beautifully - the other two, not so good). It's also converted to right-hand drive. After painting the cab and tender, I lined it with Modelmasters' BR mixed-traffic transfers, then did my usual dry-brush weathering techniques. I wanted a slightly oily/grubby look, and I think it's worked - just. Evidence of a slightly wobbly horizontal lining band on the tender in one of the pictures is actually not wobbly lining work - no, wobbly metalwork, only apparent after being lined. There is the slightest depression in the tender side, and in tight perspective it's apparent. Since the real thing had a slightly 'dented' tender, then I can live with this; especially as it's only really apparent in the pictures. A crew is yet to be fitted, as it performs Up and Down all-stations stopper work through Little Bytham. Because the Bachmann K3 at source only suits the later-build locos - those with left-hand drive and the longer cab with smaller, close-together windows, renumbering to earlier-build locos is anomalous to say the least. Though a few early locos later received left-hand drive, the characteristic 'ecclesiastical'- style cab windows are missing from the Bachmann cab.

Although it appears as Tony is posting this, it's actually Tom (2750) and Tony has kindly allowed me to post these on his behalf (this is dangerous, as he is now downstairs and I could do anything and cause havoc in the model railway world!) Very enjoyable day once again playing trains on Little Bytham. Tony has kindly helped me re gauge a mass of wagons bought from RMweb member 'Scottiedog' from EM to OO (some may say that is sacrilege!) I brought a couple of my recently weathered LNER Pacifics (destined for my future layout of Thirsk). For some reason Gadwall didn't wish to run with it's tender (creating a short) but ran fine loco only. One wonders if this A4 knew its future fate in 1942, and felt it best to not move at all! Tony did the kindest thing he could for the old bird and cut the connection to the tender pick ups. As Tony said, this is a bit like trying to cure gout by cutting one's leg off..... however it did cure the problem! I asked Tony if he could pose the locos in the positions below, and I'm really pleased with the results. Thanks Tony!

I think I'm with you at heart. Having given lectures and demonstrations on model railway photography in the past, looking back, most of what I came out with was 'bull****. But, I've been told they were entertaining! I'll make sure I post plenty more pictures of ER models.

Don't be too worried about modelling skills and all that. The main thing is to have a go - create something by/for yourself. As I've said before, I've been very fortunate in my railway modelling career to have been able to work with some very talented people, to the extent that our 'skills' have been symbiotic. Thus, my locos, some painted by Ian Rathbone, pulling stock originated by me, Dave Lewis, Tony Geary, Rob Kinsey, Rob Davey and Mick Peabody, running on track built/laid by Norman Solomon, controlled by signals built by Mick Nicholson and operated by the work of Graham Nicholas, supported by woodwork by Norman Turner and passing buildings by Ian Wilson, all 'work' together. The fact that relatively little money has changed hands is all part of the working together as a team. I realise not everyone has had that sort of privilege, but I've been able to build locos professionally, take pictures professionally and write professionally, which means I've been able to contribute in a practical way to the projects I've been involved with. That said, I'm now more drawn (now that my career has ended), on a personal level to the work of those who've had a go themselves, by themselves. Those like the blokes who came on Wednesday bringing a scratch-built D9 and B3, plus much-improved RTR locos which they've done themselves. Hats off to you I say! So, my good friend, even if you don't half the skills you'd like, in my opinion, it'll still give you enormous pleasure to create something yourself. That's what railway modelling is really about at its core. And, I'm glad you like the pictures - many thanks.

Top cropped? You mean like this? Many thanks for the praise, by the way. It is appreciated.

Larry, Why would I prompt you to delete? It's interesting to see your rendition, though the 'rusting' of the rails has also rusted part of the wheels, and nibbled at the smokebox of the B12. I still prefer 'mine' because that's how the track actually looks, but, perhaps, it should be warmer in tone. I suppose it's down to individual perception and preference. Thanks for the comment on the B12, though, as a really accurate model, it's not really up there. I built it from a Coopercraft kit (one of only two known to be built which actually work - the display model was static). Here is the pair - Jonathan Weallans built the one on the left (apologies if this image has appeared before). The boiler (plagiarised from the original Tr-ang B12?) is moulded in horrid resin and is too small a diameter - that of a B12/2; note the space beneath the spectacles. The tender body is also horrid resin. I threw mine away and substituted an original Tri-ang one. As such it's not high enough - note the difference between mine and Jonathan's. Still, in a layout setting it's just about passable, even under a more 'dramatic' sky (apologies as well if this has appeared before). A much better job could be made using a Crownline kit. I built this one for Gilbert Barnatt (Great Northern) and it's shown on his original Peterborough layout. Ian Rathbone painted it but what's happened to the front numberplate, I don't know.

Some very interesting comments, and my grateful thanks for all the observations. Returning again to image manipulation, having professionally used both 'traditional' and digital photography, digital processing is so much easier. Different skills, I admit, but still so much easier. Can you imagine what it would be like for posters on this site to have to use film, then process the results, then scan them, etc? I think not. And for top-class results on film, very high end cameras would be needed, way beyond even the best 35mm systems, though Barry Norman has produced some blinders with his Contax. Now, not only can 'budget' digital cameras give excellent results, the artificial lighting needed (or even no AL!) is nowhere near as intense or powerful. But, that's to dwell in the past, and it's gone. The comments about the 'brightness' of some published images, or even how 'chocolate box' (my description), over-processed and (almost) 'over-realistic' some can look (to the point that folk aren't really sure what's actually in front of the camera) have led me to a little experimentation. Firstly, though, I would say that lighting is still the key to 'successful' photography. We are, after all, trying to make our models/layouts look as realistic as possible, but not trying to cheat by righting wrongs digitally or putting in too much of what isn't there. Remember, our eyes will filter out the irrelevant when we view a layout at an exhibition, but take a picture and the 'unwanted' clutter attracts those same eyes far too much. For instance, I took this picture this morning. Conscious about what folk have said about things looking unnaturally blue and sunny for this country, I abandoned my lights and just lit this view with the ambient shed lighting and bounced (though very powerful) flash. I wanted to create a 'typical' English day, so no strong shadows. This is what came out pre-processing. Next, I chose a suitably grey sky (taken, looking out to sea from near Sunderland - seascape skies give you the greatest atmospheric perspective) and added it as a new layer. Some cropping, sharpening and odd area lightening resulted, an hour later, in this image. No stacking was involved (surely everything in this view needing to be in focus IS in focus). The result (I hope), a typical (if slightly over-busy) scene depicting a typical spring/summer's day in Lincolnshire in 1958. No fiddling was done with regard to straightening things or taking out modelling errors - look at the grotty fit of the J6's dome! On a personal level, it's 'nice' to think that one's models can look 'realistic' - I made/modified the locos, but others built the stock. In some ways, this shot is more redolent of the time in B&W. Taken using the same lighting conditions, but this time given a graded blue sky - is this better (as a record) than a real sky? I think it looks better in B&W. I've taken this picture using a wider angle lens to get more in the picture, though it's from a very similar viewpoint to the first one. The scene is not as busy, so the surroundings, rather than just the train (hauled by a modified Hornby O1, by the way) take precedent. I'm reasonable pleased with my scenic modelling (to the right) but there is still much to do. Once again, everything needing to be in focus is in focus and there's no nonsense of computer-added smoke, which I've come to regard as entirely unnecessary - this is where 'progress' is definitely NOT beneficial in my opinion. Again, this picture took about an hour to process, but the scene took just a few minutes to set up and take. This is a complete reversal to how I used to create such a scene on film. Though I cannot split Little Bytham's boards with ease, an exhibition layout could be. Were it an exhibition layout (like Biggleswade, Stoke, Charwelton) or many others, I would not have the boards in the distance in place at all. Behind the remaining boards, I would suspend a sky fabric giving me a backscene. I'd then compose the whole scene on the ground glass screen at the back of the camera with the iris wide open (one got used to viewing things upside down), exploiting the camera's movements to maximise the depth of field. Then I'd remove the screen and clamp the film-holder in place, then remove the dark slide. Then I would open the camera lens' shutter (aperture set at F64 or less) on time exposure and wave a 500 Watt bulb towards the sky fabric for about five-six seconds. This would illuminate the sky in a uniform manner. Then I'd close the iris (the camera's lenses all had leaf shutters), illuminate the scene with much more light from two directions - 2,000 Watts to represent the sun and a hand-held 500 Watt lamp to soften the shadow, re-exposing for a second more or so. Occasionally, if needed, further exposures would be made, all on the same frame of film. All of this required a rock-steady tripod and 'seat of the pants' calculations. I'd take several different exposure combinations to make sure one was 'dead right'. When all was done, the dark slide would be replaced, and on to the next shot. All in all, each shot would take about half an hour to set up and take, but no post-taking 'fiddling' would be necessary once the transparency was processed. For most of the first decade, that's how all my layout pictures in BRM were taken. In truth, the shot was obtained and had to be correct at source - well lit, razor sharp focus, enormous depth of field and no computer jiggery-pokery. Proper photography! That said, I'd not go back. I then opened my curtains to let in reflected natural light, once more bouncing flash off the ceiling to soften any shadows. This was the result. After processing, this was the effect - cropped, the blue of my background cloned, sharpened and selected areas lightened as necessary. Not liking the unrealistic curve of the tracks behind the bridge, I filled in the spaces with a neutral grey to make the effect less-obtrusive. Has it worked? Once more, I'm pleased with my own modelling, locos and stock-wise - kit-built B12/3, another modified Hornby O1 and kit or modified RTR vehicles. Norman Solomon's track, Mick Nicholson's signal and Ian Wilson's bridge look rather nice indeed. Since some observers seemed to like the gloomy Gresley Beat image, I thought I'd have a go of making something of it. Any thoughts? Finally, I don't think anyone has the answers to what makes a really good model railway photograph. I think some of the images produced today in magazines are exceptionally good - praise where praise is due. That said, as mentioned, I dislike smoke effects, see stacking as an 'artificial' way to increase depth of field (does the nearest bit of ballast and the furthest telegraph pole have to be in focus?), think too many pictures are over-processed resulting in some weird effects and remain, firmly, a reactionary old f**t! Since I no longer take pictures of model railways (other than my own), perhaps I have no right to express a view. Anyway (not quite finally), you still have to have good modelling in front of the camera to get a decent result. If it's your own efforts, by your own hand or the collective talents of a group, so much the better in my opinion. But, one unwanted side-effect of razor-sharp photography is this. Should the modelling be a bit suspect, it's there in crystal clarity for everyone to see. Andy's pictures in BRM are bitingly-sharp, revealing, if you look at the current issue, an over-bridge on a layout which would collapse the moment, even the lightest weight were put on it. The point about stone arches is surely this - on both sides of the keystone all the others should form a wedge with the diminishing end pointing downwards! Just as in the taking of pictures, observation is the real key. Edited to add a bit more and subtract some inane garblings!