Wright writes.....

[1471SirFrederickBanbury]

On 15/09/2024 at 03:15, Tony Wright said:

Having recently shown pictures of the Bytham A1s I've built which have been painted by Ian Rathbone, I suppose it's only fair that I show those painted by Geoff Haynes..............

 

 

 

DJH. I showed this one earlier, and, strictly-speaking, it doesn't quite qualify (although Geoff Painted it) because I didn't build PATRICK STIRLING entirely. It was started by someone who died, and I completed it (chassis and body detail).

 

Interestingly (if one is a 'loco-picker'), 60119 was the only A1 never to get a proper Gill Sans front numberplate, retaining the curly-tailed '6' and '9' to the end. 

 

The rest are all my work............

 

 

DJH. SILURIAN has charge of an Up fast freight.

 

 

 

DJH. I have no absolute evidence that GUY MANNERING ever worked the 'ANGLO-SCOTTICH CAR CARRIER', but it was certainly a job for Tyneside-based Pacifics on occasions. 

 

 

 

Crownline. PEREGRINE (great name, which should have been retained by an A4, given that it's the world's fastest creature) heads a Down Leeds express. The leading car is a Comet Mk.1 BSO, built long before such niceties were available RTR. 

 

 

 

 

 

DJH. Roller bearing-fitted GREAT EASTERN (though not on the model - are there many which have these?) glides regally northbound through the station.............

 

 

Moments later to be met by ABEDONIAN (DJH) on an Up York/Hull express.

 

I have a prototype shot of 60158 passing through Little Bytham.................

 

 

Some time in 1958, a year prior to the station's demolition. 

 

I've tried before to replicate this view in model form, but never got it right.

 

I tried again yesterday (now that I have a model of ABERDONIAN)...............

 

 

But, until someone invents a sub-miniature camera, physics doesn't allow me the possibility. Perhaps I should have moved the loco's position around a bit, but it's really rather academic because the salient points are evident. 

 

Without further labouring the point, this is where those who don't model an actual prototype have the advantage (the ground signal next to the loco is incorrectly-sited. Were it in the right place, it would sit over a substantial bearer, meaning it couldn't be made to work - which it does where it is). 

 

I asked earlier if there many other DJH A1s out there, but not many (if any) have appeared. May we see them, please?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

[Tony Wright]

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. 

[1471SirFrederickBanbury]

Just now, Tony Wright said:

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. 

All point made being true, but it is something that I wish was commercially available.  I did find the making of a miniature one for more normal cameras, and considering that 009 models were able to be filmed so well with this system, I would look to find someone to make one for you if I did so much professional photography.  I might even have a go myself one day, or I could use a Devry "lunchbox" cine camera upside down for filming, which I probably will do once one comes up for the right price on Ebay.  Film is still good in terms of definition I say.

 

http://sodorscratchbuilding.com/category/cinema/ 

[t-b-g]

On 15/09/2024 at 08:15, Tony Wright said:

Having recently shown pictures of the Bytham A1s I've built which have been painted by Ian Rathbone, I suppose it's only fair that I show those painted by Geoff Haynes..............

 

 

 

DJH. I showed this one earlier, and, strictly-speaking, it doesn't quite qualify (although Geoff Painted it) because I didn't build PATRICK STIRLING entirely. It was started by someone who died, and I completed it (chassis and body detail).

 

Interestingly (if one is a 'loco-picker'), 60119 was the only A1 never to get a proper Gill Sans front numberplate, retaining the curly-tailed '6' and '9' to the end. 

 

The rest are all my work............

 

 

DJH. SILURIAN has charge of an Up fast freight.

 

 

 

DJH. I have no absolute evidence that GUY MANNERING ever worked the 'ANGLO-SCOTTICH CAR CARRIER', but it was certainly a job for Tyneside-based Pacifics on occasions. 

 

 

 

Crownline. PEREGRINE (great name, which should have been retained by an A4, given that it's the world's fastest creature) heads a Down Leeds express. The leading car is a Comet Mk.1 BSO, built long before such niceties were available RTR. 

 

 

 

 

 

DJH. Roller bearing-fitted GREAT EASTERN (though not on the model - are there many which have these?) glides regally northbound through the station.............

 

 

Moments later to be met by ABEDONIAN (DJH) on an Up York/Hull express.

 

I have a prototype shot of 60158 passing through Little Bytham.................

 

 

Some time in 1958, a year prior to the station's demolition. 

 

I've tried before to replicate this view in model form, but never got it right.

 

I tried again yesterday (now that I have a model of ABERDONIAN)...............

 

 

But, until someone invents a sub-miniature camera, physics doesn't allow me the possibility. Perhaps I should have moved the loco's position around a bit, but it's really rather academic because the salient points are evident. 

 

Without further labouring the point, this is where those who don't model an actual prototype have the advantage (the ground signal next to the loco is incorrectly-sited. Were it in the right place, it would sit over a substantial bearer, meaning it couldn't be made to work - which it does where it is). 

 

I asked earlier if there many other DJH A1s out there, but not many (if any) have appeared. May we see them, please?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

[brightspark]

Coal - 

A story that I have heard, first from my late father and also from a long deceased driver, but he could have been feeding the same story back to me.

So on Staines High Street  (now Staines upon Thames) next to the iron bridge (roughly where the old high street station used to be), there used to be a cinema. 

The story is that the projectionist was badgering some friends who were loco crew to drop some coal off when they were waiting at the signal for the old junction. It seems that very late one night, while waiting at the aforementioned bobby to be pulled off, and expecting the usual long wait, the crew decided to carry out the request. So driver and fireman got up onto the tender and the two of them managed to hurl a very large lump of coal onto the cinema roof for the projectionist to collect the next day.

It seems that the roof was not that strong and the large lump of coal went through the roof and landed in the auditorium, where it was discovered the next day.

The story continues that the local newspaper reported that the cinema had been struck by a meteorite. 

 

I would love to know if any of this is true, but would disappointed if it wasn't. 

 

 

[sandra]

Hello Tony,

 

It was nice to see the photos of the B17s. Clumber is one of the best locomotives on Retford and it’s amazing to watch it haul 11 coaches up the steep gradient out of the fiddle yard with no trouble at all and from a standing start.

 

However you may remember that some time ago I bought a scratch-built B2 from Geoff West. 61639 Norwich City. It was tried on Little Bytham but the motor was faulty. Since buying it I’ve converted it to EM gauge, replaced the driving wheels and fitted a Portescap motor. I’ve been testing it today and here are some photos.

Here she is hauling the boat train in the up direction (towards Lincoln). This is the train normally pulled by Clumber.  She has no difficulty with this train because the locomotive is extremely heavy and with a Portescap motor she’s very powerful.

The locomotive is not finished yet. The old open frame motor filled the cab so I’ve got to build a cab interior. There are a few other minor details to fix but overall I’m very pleased with her.The question does of course arise as to whether B2s were ever seen at Retford. I’ve been unable to find any photographs of them there. I have heard anecdotal evidence that they occasionally appeared on the boat train and both the RCTS green books and the LNER Forum refer to them appearing at Sheffield but I’ve not seen any actual evidence. In 1957 all 10 B2s were shedded at Cambridge so it’s not impossible that they occasionally reached Sheffield, most likely via Retford. Anyway this locomotive is a bit different and I think it’s unlikely that an RTR model will appear as they are a rather obscure class and they also had a variety of tenders for such a small class. Seven had North Eastern tenders which themselves had various minor variations. Two had the tenders from the withdrawn P1s and one, 61671 Royal Sovereign, had a group standard tender. This engine was actually the Royal engine which pulled the Royal train. 61639 has an NE tender.

 

Sandra

[Woodcock29]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

[Michael Edge]

9 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?

 

Definitely taken from further back, look at the pointwork in the foreground.

[Tony Wright]

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. 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Michael Edge said:

Definitely taken from further back, look at the pointwork in the foreground.

 

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.

[Tony Wright]

11 hours ago, sandra said:

Hello Tony,

 

It was nice to see the photos of the B17s. Clumber is one of the best locomotives on Retford and it’s amazing to watch it haul 11 coaches up the steep gradient out of the fiddle yard with no trouble at all and from a standing start.

 

However you may remember that some time ago I bought a scratch-built B2 from Geoff West. 61639 Norwich City. It was tried on Little Bytham but the motor was faulty. Since buying it I’ve converted it to EM gauge, replaced the driving wheels and fitted a Portescap motor. I’ve been testing it today and here are some photos.

Here she is hauling the boat train in the up direction (towards Lincoln). This is the train normally pulled by Clumber.  She has no difficulty with this train because the locomotive is extremely heavy and with a Portescap motor she’s very powerful.

The locomotive is not finished yet. The old open frame motor filled the cab so I’ve got to build a cab interior. There are a few other minor details to fix but overall I’m very pleased with her.The question does of course arise as to whether B2s were ever seen at Retford. I’ve been unable to find any photographs of them there. I have heard anecdotal evidence that they occasionally appeared on the boat train and both the RCTS green books and the LNER Forum refer to them appearing at Sheffield but I’ve not seen any actual evidence. In 1957 all 10 B2s were shedded at Cambridge so it’s not impossible that they occasionally reached Sheffield, most likely via Retford. Anyway this locomotive is a bit different and I think it’s unlikely that an RTR model will appear as they are a rather obscure class and they also had a variety of tenders for such a small class. Seven had North Eastern tenders which themselves had various minor variations. Two had the tenders from the withdrawn P1s and one, 61671 Royal Sovereign, had a group standard tender. This engine was actually the Royal engine which pulled the Royal train. 61639 has an NE tender.

 

Sandra

Good morning Sandra,

 

I'm delighted CLUMBER is still performing well, and is where she really belongs.

 

I'm also delighted you've got the scratch-built B2 working in EM; a credit to your ingenuity and perseverance. With its massive Pittman motor, it never really performed that well in OO.

 

 

This is how it first appeared on Bytham, bought from Barry Oliver (builder/painter unknown).

 

After Geoff West had bought it, he asked Geoff Haynes to repaint it.............

 

 

 

Which he did.

 

Geoff (W) then weathered it..........

 

 

To produce a most-natural looking loco.

 

A thing which is 'incorrect' is the provision of two handrail pillars on the smokebox front ring (as on the original B17). There should only be one (at the top)..........

 

 

As you've done on the B2 you're building (have you finished it yet?). 

 

Another (Thompson) B2 has run on Little Bytham.

 

 

Built from a DMR kit (with the ex-P1 tender), but who built/painted it and who brought it I cannot recall.

 

I never saw a B2 at Retford (or anywhere), and I've never seen any pictures of them that far east, but the RCTS suggests that they worked through to Sheffield towards the ends of their lives (though don't take everything the RCTS says as gospel - K2s on trains being diverted because of the Retford dive-under's construction, for instance - in 1965!).

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 08:26 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

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. 

[Tony Wright]

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. 

 

 

[gingerangles]

23 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

A thing which is 'incorrect' is the provision of two handrail pillars on the smokebox front ring (as on the original B17). There should only be one (at the top)..........

 

 

It's worrying about exactly this sort of thing that keeps me awake at night...

 

...the unknown unknowns.

[Woodcock29]

31 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

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?

 

 

 

 

That's certainly the right combination of firebox and splasher type as I understand it and from photos I've studied.

 

Andrew

[Michael Edge]

This is the Q4 from my etches.

It has been weathered since but I don't have a better photo of it just now, runs on Wentworth Junction mostly on the colliery trip.

[jacko]

On 15/09/2024 at 10:23, PMP said:

That’d be down to poor track laying then.

 

The code 75 streamline (above) and Cd75 bullhead have channels in the sleeper base for wiring, so you can offset the frog wiring or do vertical drop wires. AFAIK, Code100, Cd80 and the other ranges have it as a standard feature, for example it’s included in the new tt120 range.

Late replying to this (relatives visiting for a long weekend).  All my frog wires go straight down through the baseboard so there's no chance of them getting trapped under the trackwork. I'm fairly confident all the trackwork is flat and i've been running the new Hornby black 5 '5200' through all the slips and turnouts for ten minutes or so 'play' before tackling the next 2 feet of ballasting. (surprisingly given the number of bad reviews, 5200 actually runs very well - being LMS the lamps are black so the size is not too noticeable although I'm going to have to tone down how bright they are.   

 

Graeme

[PupCam]

13 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?

 

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

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.

 

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

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.

 

Assuming that the model is an accurate dimensional replication of the real thing* the fundamental parameter governing how accurately the model photograph can replicate the original is the lens length** .   It is this parameter that determines the apparent closeness or  otherwise of any two items in a scene and hence the apparent magnification.   We don't know what the actual degree of telephoto was used in the original (although Tony will know it for the model photograph) but what can be said with certainty is that, just from the appearance of the images, the prototype photograph used a higher degree of telephoto than the model.     The situation is complicated as Tony mentioned by the simple geometry limitations of a big camera on a small scene and the fact that the camera cannot be positioned in precisely the correct spot which will always frustrate attempts to get a perfect reproduction.     Shouldn't stop you trying though!  😀  

 

If  an interesting prototype photograph is available from a position that is accessible on the model it might be fun to see how close one could get to an accurate replication using a zoom lens (assuming there is a suitable one to hand)  to match the unknown focal length used for the original.      Sounds like an interesting investigation for Tony and his two helpers, Puppers and PolyBear, at some point 🤣

 

*     Which we do

**  As in degree of telephoto - the absolute focal length in mm as Tony is well aware is dependent on the format/size of image at the focal plane

 

Alan

 

 

 

[Barclay]

Even then I suspect that the degree of compression of the scene produced by the telephoto would be hard to replicate given that you are looking at such a tiny depth compared with the real thing. It would be interesting to experiment though !

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, PupCam said:

 

 

 

Assuming that the model is an accurate dimensional replication of the real thing* the fundamental parameter governing how accurately the model photograph can replicate the original is the lens length** .   It is this parameter that determines the apparent closeness or  otherwise of any two items in a scene and hence the apparent magnification.   We don't know what the actual degree of telephoto was used in the original (although Tony will know it for the model photograph) but what can be said with certainty is that, just from the appearance of the images, the prototype photograph used a higher degree of telephoto than the model.     The situation is complicated as Tony mentioned by the simple geometry limitations of a big camera on a small scene and the fact that the camera cannot be positioned in precisely the correct spot which will always frustrate attempts to get a perfect reproduction.     Shouldn't stop you trying though!  😀  

 

If  an interesting prototype photograph is available from a position that is accessible on the model it might be fun to see how close one could get to an accurate replication using a zoom lens (assuming there is a suitable one to hand)  to match the unknown focal length used for the original.      Sounds like an interesting investigation for Tony and his two helpers, Puppers and PolyBear, at some point 🤣

 

*     Which we do

**  As in degree of telephoto - the absolute focal length in mm as Tony is well aware is dependent on the format/size of image at the focal plane

 

Alan

 

 

 

 

I had wondered about placing a mirror on the layout. Then you could use the big camera, which could be set up nearby using any sort of long or short lens. Then it should be possible to reverse the image on the computer.

[PupCam]

13 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I had wondered about placing a mirror on the layout. Then you could use the big camera, which could be set up nearby using any sort of long or short lens. Then it should be possible to reverse the image on the computer.

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.

 

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 13:07 by PupCam
I hate auto correct ….

[65179]

6 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

That's certainly the right combination of firebox and splasher type as I understand it and from photos I've studied.

 

Andrew

 

The Q4s all switched to a visible waisted firebox at some point in LNER days. All had the clothing following the waisted firebox shape by BR days. Here's 63240 apparently near Little Bytham in 1950 close to withdrawal:

 

https://archive.rcts.org.uk/product/phw1244/

 

Edit: I had thought the switch to visibly waisted was early, but there are a number of views of both the long and short splasher types in the Rail Online collection with some with dates into the 1930s:

 

Here's short splasher 6075 in 1933: 

https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p22837719/h67e20ceb

 

and one with a waisted firebox in GC days:

 

https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p22837719/h61ec3479

 

 

It's not clear from Yeadon, and I'm open to correction, but it appears the last 35 appeared with visibly waisted fireboxes from new (15 short splashers and the last 20 with the long splashers).

 

Simon 

Edited Tuesday at 15:41 by 65179
Correcting info

[Tony Wright]

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. 

[PupCam]

13 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

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

 

Sounds like a plan.

 

8 hours ago, Barclay said:

Even then I suspect that the degree of compression of the scene produced by the telephoto would be hard to replicate given that you are looking at such a tiny depth compared with the real thing. It would be interesting to experiment though !

 

That's where one of Tony's ultra small aperture lenses (to restore the depth of field in the small scale)  would come to the fore. 

 

Then the question must be;  does Tony have a suitable ultra small aperture zoom lens at his disposal?  🤔    Roll on the spring I say!

 

Edited Tuesday at 19:24 by PupCam
Added reply to Barclay's post

[Tony Wright]

Today, good Scottish friend Eric Kidd paid his yearly visit to see Little Bytham.

 

As usual, he brought some very interesting models he's made/modified.............. Including...............

 

 

An A2/1 WAVERLEY (Eric getting the next loco ready for photography). A1s standing in Station Road was an everyday occurrence! 

 

Not only did he bring an A2/1 named WAVERLEY....

 

 

But also an NBR Reid Atlantic of the same name.

 

 

 

A quite-splendid model, and a first on Little Bytham. 

 

Next was...........

 

 

 

 

A Black Five.

 

 

Eric also took some pictures of his own.

 

This was followed by............

 

 

 

 

This lovely Hunt.

 

Then............

 

 

 

 

This delightful ex-Caledonian 4-4-0. 

 

Which passed...........

 

 

A Fowler dock tank.

 

 

 

Again, another Bytham first.

 

Finally............

 

 

 

 

We have a Scottish Region B1, also passing the dock tank.

 

Thank you, Eric, for bringing these examples of your work (all your own work), your present to Mo (please thank Janet), the wagons you gave me and Jilly's treats (which she loves!). Also thanks for your most-generous contribution to CRUK. 

 

Today was just the sort of day I enjoy the most at Bytham. Dear friends bringing along things to run and for me to photograph. I can see those I've made every day, but it's wonderful to see such lovely models from elsewhere. Models made personally - not commissions and not mainly RTR.

 

Thanks again, Eric, for keeping the craft of railway modelling alive.

 

Have a good day at Peterborough North tomorrow.  

 

Eric says he'll describe the models above when he gets back home to Edinburgh.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 19:34 by Tony Wright