Wright writes.....

[LNERandBR]

10 hours ago, robmcg said:

I have bought, for any who are interested, a full-frame Canon RP 26MP mirrorless camera and a couple of basic lenses, but even these weren't particularly cheap.  I do love cameras though, so messing around with them and RTR models will bring much pleasure, and quite probably a degree of bemusement and frustration. Untangling the intricacies of modern camera menu systems and endless options for settings is something of a skill, separating what matters from what doesn't, don't get me started! .

 

 

I feel that getting my Canon M50 Mirrorless Camera improved my photography due to the extra information it can provide on screen. Instant feedback if you like as you adjust settings. Hope you enjoy it

 

[Tony Wright]

14 hours ago, micklner said:

On the same picture.

The Loco's Footplate and the Cylinder (which is even bulging out more at the top from under the Footplate), look like they are leaning to the left at the front end , and then the Footplate is  slightly leaning  to the right as it goes towards the Cab. The Tender then is higher at the rear than at the front . Bizarre.

Good morning Mick,

 

I don't think my modelling has ever been referred to as 'bizarre' before, but that's a first. 

 

In my defence, I didn't build the loco body nor anything on the tender, though I did build the loco's chassis. 

 

What has happened, of course, is that the lens' ability to shoot a subject in extremely tight perspective and still retain enormous depth of field, and the foreshortening which occurs by its 60mm focal length, has highlighted any discrepancies. Perhaps if all models were photographed from the same angle, with the same kit, we'd see a lot more which are 'bizarre'. 

 

As I've said many times, a camera is the most 'critical' of 'eyes'. And, the more-powerful its lens, the more 'critical' it becomes. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

12 hours ago, robertcwp said:

That is one of the best photos of Retford that I have seen. It really conveys the size of it all and the fact that it is essentially true to scale. 

That's very kind of you Robert,

 

Actually, I've been quite lazy with the picture in question. I've just cropped it to the top of Retford's backscene boards (removing the 'Retford South' sausage sign above the station), rather than extend the 'sky' to include the tops of the Down fast starters. That said, I think it 'works', showing how it does the great spread of this great model railway. 

 

50mm lens at F.29.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[gr.king]

13 hours ago, MikeTrice said:

Another one from a different angle:

 

That suggests to me that when the whole thing is neatly assembled and the bolts properly tightened, the front edge of the central part of the cab roof does not stand proud of the boiler clothing by anything like as much as my generous first estimate of 5/8". The roof edge is apparently thicker than a boiler band, but not much, maybe 1/4" max??  In 4mm scale, say 0.003". 

I can see why Hornby did not bother to represent that edge at all, and I'm quite comfortable now with the thought that it isn't there on any of my models.

This all assumes that Mallard's restoration is absolutely correct in that respect, and as I found when I went to check details of the Flaman speedometer drive, not all of the restoration is to original pattern.

[Tony Wright]

11 hours ago, robmcg said:

 

What a very fine photograph of a stunning model railway.

 

Your influence on many readers Tony must be very great. I have just bought a full frame digital camera and am in the process of finding which lenses and settings might permit me someday to aproach the standard you achieve, the 'gold standard', with your Nikon and various lenses.

 

I have bought, for any who are interested, a full-frame Canon RP 26MP mirrorless camera and a couple of basic lenses, but even these weren't particularly cheap.  I do love cameras though, so messing around with them and RTR models will bring much pleasure, and quite probably a degree of bemusement and frustration. Untangling the intricacies of modern camera menu systems and endless options for settings is something of a skill, separating what matters from what doesn't, don't get me started! .

 

Thank you for setting such an admirable standard.

 

 

Good morning Rob,

 

Another commentator who's very kind. Thank you.

 

The Nikon Df is the best digital camera I've ever used for model railway photography. In all its functions, it's just like a Nikon F film camera, with all the controls on the top as it were. I use nothing on it or its lenses which is automatic. I set the focus, choose the shutter speed and aperture (always minimum with the latter) and set it on a ten second delay (to eliminate shutter flutter) or lock the mirror up prior to taking a picture. It's, obviously, more bulky that compacts, but I've never been able to get on with weeny cameras.

 

As I've said before, though the patient Mr York explained the stacking process to me, I can never get on with the technique (do I need to?), preferring to achieve depth of field optically.

 

I bought my Df second-hand some years ago, and I believe that's the only way now to acquire one. I'm told it was not very popular. Why, baffles me.

 

What a Df body costs now, I have no idea. One thing I won't be upgrading to the current D6 spec' is my D3. I don't have over five grand to spend on a camera! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

[Headstock]

3 minutes ago, gr.king said:

 

That suggests to me that when the whole thing is neatly assembled and the bolts properly tightened, the front edge of the central part of the cab roof does not stand proud of the boiler clothing by anything like as much as my generous first estimate of 5/8". The roof edge is apparently thicker than a boiler band, but not much, maybe 1/4" max??  In 4mm scale, say 0.003". 

I can see why Hornby did not bother to represent that edge at all, and I'm quite comfortable now with the thought that it isn't there on any of my models.

This all assumes that Mallard's restoration is absolutely correct in that respect, and as I found when I went to check details of the Flaman speedometer drive, not all of the restoration is to original pattern.

 

Good morning Graeme,

 

I wouldn't totally trust preserved locomotives. For example, the V front would have originally extender further forwards, that is why there is a gap in the firebox cladding band, at some point this was cut back. Many of the preserved  A4's have had the height of the roof reduced for the modern loading gauge. The Hornby A4 actually has a U shaped rather than V fronted cab roof, you can see it and feel it with a finger nail. The image below shows the edge of the roof, highlighted by the dotted line. It is the right height but everything to the left of the line is just painted on. The consequences are that if you paint a real A4 plain black, it still has a V fronted cab. If you were to paint the Hornby model plain black, the V would disappear and the the cab would be U fronted. I personally would fit a bit of plasticware over the painted V to the same height as the U fronted cab. The Hornby model is also missing the firebox/cab cladding band, this with the extended V front is part of the character of the original condition A4 in my opinion.

 

Dotted line equals the stepped down true edge of the cab roof. To the right is just paint.

 

 

[Headstock]

10 hours ago, Iain.d said:

 

Thank you for that, and the information about this type of wagon, I do admit my knowledge gap of wagons is vast.

 

There was no history of the wagon with the kit instructions although it did say (paraphrased) it could make a 10T or 12T example, depending on the axle diameter.

 

So now knowing a bit more, I’m less inclined to ‘lose’ it in an engineering or departmental train. I’m now more inclined to either paint it in PO livery of one of the Somerset Coalfield collieries circa 1920 (I’ll do a bit of research) or as a tired PO wagon circa 1950ish.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

 

Good morning Ian,

 

your coal wagon has been well worth the effort in my opinion. Such interesting little prototypes can do nothing but lift the general quality of a model railway. If you get the bug and fancy adding some more user-friendly companions to your wagon fleet, you may consider the Cambrian range of plastic kit PO wagons.

[MikeTrice]

Photo of Bittern as preserved:

 

GA lists thickness as 3/16".

Edited January 29, 2022 by MikeTrice
Added dimension.

[micklner]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Mick,

 

I don't think my modelling has ever been referred to as 'bizarre' before, but that's a first. 

 

In my defence, I didn't build the loco body nor anything on the tender, though I did build the loco's chassis. 

 

What has happened, of course, is that the lens' ability to shoot a subject in extremely tight perspective and still retain enormous depth of field, and the foreshortening which occurs by its 60mm focal length, has highlighted any discrepancies. Perhaps if all models were photographed from the same angle, with the same kit, we'd see a lot more which are 'bizarre'. 

 

As I've said many times, a camera is the most 'critical' of 'eyes'. And, the more-powerful its lens, the more 'critical' it becomes. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony

Bizarre relates to the angles the Camera/Lens has managed to create in the photo. It is not the first time some very strange effects have been created on here and elsewhere in photos.

 

I do not think for a moment the actual model could have that many angles , unless it had been dropped from a great height !!

[Bernard Lamb]

In the July 1988 Railway modeller there is  a drawing by Ian Beattie of an A4.

The V, or rather lack of, on the cab roof is very similar to the shape adopted by Hornby.

Any connection?

Bernard

[polybear]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

What a Df body costs now, I have no idea. One thing I won't be upgrading to the current D6 spec' is my D3. I don't have over five grand to spend on a camera! 

 

 

A quick look on Ebay suggests around a grand upwards, with little-used ones being around £1500....

[gr.king]

2 hours ago, MikeTrice said:

Photo of Bittern as preserved:

 

GA lists thickness as 3/16".

 

Unless both Bittern and Mallard have been altered in the same way, that seems to add weight to the evidence. I note that the different top heights of the slightly tilted Ross pops on the sloping firebox outer casing are clearly evident too.

Unless there has been a total alteration of the whole of the cab vee-front, it appears to me that in order for the tip of the vee to have ever been further forward, the front of the plate forming the bulge would have to have been cut at a more acute angle, not matching  the rest of the cab front. Why would that be done?

What is really needed to settle the issue is a large clear 1930s photograph looking down on an A4...

[Denbridge]

9 minutes ago, gr.king said:

 

Unless both Bittern and Mallard have been altered in the same way, that seems to add weight to the evidence. I note that the different top heights of the slightly tilted Ross pops on the sloping firebox outer casing are clearly evident too.

Unless there has been a total alteration of the whole of the cab vee-front, it appears to me that in order for the tip of the vee to have ever been further forward, the front of the plate forming the bulge would have to have been cut at a more acute angle, not matching  the rest of the cab front. Why would that be done?

What is really needed to settle the issue is a large clear 1930s photograph looking down on an A4...

Perhaps the definitive preserved A4 cab roof shape would be from photos of the 2 North American survivors since, apart from repainting ( and the addition of valances on Dominion) are pretty much in the condition as withdrawn from traffic, with no modifications for mainline running.

[AdamOrmorod]

20 minutes ago, gr.king said:

 

Unless both Bittern and Mallard have been altered in the same way, that seems to add weight to the evidence. I note that the different top heights of the slightly tilted Ross pops on the sloping firebox outer casing are clearly evident too.

Unless there has been a total alteration of the whole of the cab vee-front, it appears to me that in order for the tip of the vee to have ever been further forward, the front of the plate forming the bulge would have to have been cut at a more acute angle, not matching  the rest of the cab front. Why would that be done?

What is really needed to settle the issue is a large clear 1930s photograph looking down on an A4...

Not top down, but this image of Guillemot (pinched from Facebook) looks to me to show the vee ending in the same way as Bittern and Mallard above.

 

It would seem very strange for the whole angle of the vee to have been changed!

[Tony Wright]

49 minutes ago, polybear said:

 

A quick look on Ebay suggests around a grand upwards, with little-used ones being around £1500....

Thanks Brian,

 

I bought my Df body for just over two grand, about six years ago. So, about fair, considering it was in immaculate condition, which it definitely isn't now! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, micklner said:

Tony

Bizarre relates to the angles the Camera/Lens has managed to create in the photo. It is not the first time some very strange effects have been created on here and elsewhere in photos.

 

I do not think for a moment the actual model could have that many angles , unless it had been dropped from a great height !!

Thanks Mick,

 

I don't think the camera/lens has produced 'bizarre' angles at all (I wouldn't tolerate a camera where aberrations are used as an excuse for 'dodgy' modelling, which is a frequent claim by some). No, what you've commented on is really true (and my thanks for that). The model does have that many angles, which the powerful camera has picked out. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Bernard Lamb said:

In the July 1988 Railway modeller there is  a drawing by Ian Beattie of an A4.

The V, or rather lack of, on the cab roof is very similar to the shape adopted by Hornby.

Any connection?

Bernard

Good afternoon Bernard,

 

The issue regarding the Beattie drawing of an A4 was raised in the RM around autumn time, last year. I contributed to the correspondence. 

 

Though looking very 'pretty', the Beattie drawing of an A4 is wildly inaccurate, and should only be used as a framed print, in the lavatory of a non-railway enthusiast's home. 

 

The same is true for many of his other drawings. Though technically-proficient (unlike some hand-drawn plans, complete with 'whiskers' here and there, even though they're accurate), they're really not good for use as a guide for anyone making models - flat-fronted roofs on A4 cabs, along with a straight line to the front casing in plan view, plus a tender drawing which combines the different types into one; and, a B17 with ten-spoked bogie wheels, plus a V2 with a 'banjo' dome. Oh dear, no. And, that's just some of the LNER ones.......

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Tony Wright
tautology

[Tony Wright]

I can't find my source of reference at the moment, but does anyone know during which weekend in August it is hoped to stage the Pickering Show, please? 

[Tony Wright]

Regarding the fronts of A4 model cab roofs, these are the shots I sent to the RM last September............

 

 

Hornby (left) and Bachmann.

 

 

Wills/SEF (left) and Pro-scale.

 

 

[micklner]

34 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Mick,

 

I don't think the camera/lens has produced 'bizarre' angles at all (I wouldn't tolerate a camera where aberrations are used as an excuse for 'dodgy' modelling, which is a frequent claim by some). No, what you've commented on is really true (and my thanks for that). The model does have that many angles, which the powerful camera has picked out. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thats a surprise !! Needs help from a pair of pliers (joking) !!

[Headstock]

9 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Regarding the fronts of A4 model cab roofs, these are the shots I sent to the RM last September............

 

 

Hornby (left) and Bachmann.

 

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

it looks as if the Hornby A4 has had a repaint and lost its painted V front to the cab.

[micklner]

Re A4 roofs

 

 Brassmaster list the Martin Finney A4 kit sadly only two samll photos, on enlarging  one appears to show the BR version with a tiny raised Cab roof front the LNER Version appears flat . I know all mine can stay flush !!.

 

http://www.brassmasters.co.uk/lner_a4_4-6-2.htm

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Ade the Pianist 4468 said:

Not top down, but this image of Guillemot (pinched from Facebook) looks to me to show the vee ending in the same way as Bittern and Mallard above.

 

It would seem very strange for the whole angle of the vee to have been changed!

 

Good afternoon Ade the Pianist 4468,

 

The whole angle of the V wasn't changed. What was changed was the section of the roof that covered the Safety valves and also the had the tip of the V. It originally came further forwards so that it lined up with the outer edge of the firebox/cab cladding band. That is why there is a gap in the cladding band across the top of the firebox in BR and preserved locomotives. At sometime in the locomotives careers, pre preservation, the V was cut back to the position of the rest of the roof. The angle was the same, just staggered in its original form. This may be the case on your photo, though it is not very visible one way or the other. I would have to borrow one of Mikes images to draw it out if I am not being clear.  

Edited January 29, 2022 by Headstock
clarify a point

[Headstock]

20 minutes ago, micklner said:

Re A4 roofs

 

 Brassmaster list the Martin Finney A4 kit sadly only two samll photos, on enlarging  one appears to show the BR version with a tiny raised Cab roof front the LNER Version appears flat . I know all mine can stay flush !!.

 

http://www.brassmasters.co.uk/lner_a4_4-6-2.htm

 

Afternoon Mick,

 

the whole area is a bit of a fudge with most of the detail missing, i.e. the cladding band, the spectacle plate window frames and a physical V front to the cab. It just looks too smooth, like a melted bit of cheese, when the real thing is made up of separate components bolted together. Would I put up with it, I don't know? I'm always thinking from the point of view of how I would make something, rather than excepting what  is done for me. 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Headstock
clarify a point

[Dominion]

This is the V front of Dapol cab. Very slightly above the firebox cladding. I hadn't noticed it before.