Wright writes.....

[robertcwp]

5 hours ago, Northmoor said:

The key words there are "should, as far as practicable" and not "must".  By 1975 they were clearly only guidelines and not rules.

Indeed, and if you look at the formations listed, not many conform to what is stated in the extract I posted. This was especially so from around the time the Mark 2f and Mark 3a stock came into service, from when a lot of West Coast sets only had a BG at one end and no brake at the other end. The Midland Main Line had by the mid-1970s switched to having a brake in the middle of most of its sets. 

 

[Tony Wright]

Well, the petrol store is now installed on Little Bytham.............

 

 

This is the picture I showed earlier, with the store visible above the carriage.

 

I've tried to reproduce the shot in model form...........

 

 

Quite impossible exactly..........

 

Why not? Certainly not because the relative positions of the structures aren't correct, but simple physics (if ever physics could be described thus). No, the physics of my camera and its lenses. The camera's body is twice the size of the stationmaster's house, and I couldn't possibly get the same angle. I had to perch it on the top of the embankment, but the top of the embankment isn't wide enough.

 

So, this is the best I can do (I tried several angles). However, I don't think this diminishes the value of actually modelling a prototype location.......

 

Even though I'd moved the wooden planter beforehand when doing some videoing!!!!

Edited November 18, 2022 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Chamby]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Well, the petrol store is now installed on Little Bytham.............

 

 

This is the picture I showed earlier, with the store visible above the carriage.

 

I've tried to reproduce the shot in model form...........

 

 

Quite impossible exactly..........

 

Why not? Certainly not because the relative positions of the structures aren't correct, but simple physics (if ever physics could be described thus). No, the physics of my camera and its lenses. The camera's body is twice the size of the stationmaster's house, and I couldn't possibly get the same angle. I had to perch it on the top of the embankment, but the top of the embankment isn't wide enough.

 

So, this is the best I can do (I tried several angles). However, I don't think this diminishes the value of actually modelling a prototype location.......

 

Even though I'd moved the wooden planter beforehand when doing some videoing!!!!

 

A truly remarkable similarity between the photographs, Tony.  Though it does tempt one to play ‘spot the difference’... Which proves to be commendably difficult!  Just two minor observations then: the foliage on the far embankment, and the length of the ‘headshunt’.

 

That’s being really picky though, and to a degree of scrutiny that far exceeds what my own modelling can bear.  To achieve this level of accuracy in three dimensional modelling on such a large subject, is surely exceptional.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

A correspondent requested some info' on Bytham's (Peppercorn) A2s, with regard to the multiple valve regulator-fitted ones. 

 

I thought I'd share my comments to him on here...........

 

Seen before, but my near-50-year old Wills A2. I fitted it on top of a Tri-ang 'Britannia' chassis, re-wheeled with Romfords. Years after building it, I substituted a DJH tender for the inappropriate Wills one, fitting a streamlined dome at the same time (after taking off the banjo sort supplied). Even the painting is my work. 

 

 

It's seen here in company with a modified Bachmann A2.

 

 

And, in company with a DJH A2 I built (much more-recently), this one painted by Geoff Haynes. 

 

The electric generator on the Wills one is in the wrong place - why did I believe the kit's instructions and the Roche drawing all those years ago?

 

 

I built SUGAR PALM to run on Little Bytham.

 

 

But then also built an EM chassis so that she could run on Retford (where she now resides). 

 

 

A Crownline A2, started by Rob Kinsey and completed by me, finally painted by Ian Rathbone. 

 

I hate to have to say this.............

 

 

But this is as good as any A2 I've built from a kit - Bachmann's effort, suitably-detailed, renumbered, renamed and lettered.

 

Tom Foster's lovely weathering helps, of course. 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

42 minutes ago, Chamby said:

 

A truly remarkable similarity between the photographs, Tony.  Though it does tempt one to play ‘spot the difference’... Which proves to be commendably difficult!  Just two minor observations then: the foliage on the far embankment, and the length of the ‘headshunt’.

 

That’s being really picky though, and to a degree of scrutiny that far exceeds what my own modelling can bear.  To achieve this level of accuracy in three dimensional modelling on such a large subject, is surely exceptional.

 

 

Thanks Phil,

 

The carriage isn't the same, either. I think the one in the real shot is a Mk.1BSO, whereas on the model it's a BSK Mk.1. 

 

Since I don't have ABERDONIAN, then 60116 is a substitute, it being the same A1 class. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Barry Ten]

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

So, this is the best I can do (I tried several angles). However, I don't think this diminishes the value of actually modelling a prototype location.......

 

 

If you can find a reasonably large and unblemished mirror, it's possible to position the mirror more or less where you want the camera to be (propped up at a suitable angle) and then shoot into the mirror from the opposite direction. The physical size of the camera is no longer the limiting factor, so you can get suitably close to rail height. It does need some trial and error, and the mirror obviously degrades the image to a degree, but it might be fun just for the ability to get exactly the same perspective as the prototype shots. Needless to say the image needs to be flipped afterwards.

[Jesse Sim]

13 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Well, the petrol store is now installed on Little Bytham.............

 

 

This is the picture I showed earlier, with the store visible above the carriage.

 

I've tried to reproduce the shot in model form...........

 

 

Quite impossible exactly..........

 

Why not? Certainly not because the relative positions of the structures aren't correct, but simple physics (if ever physics could be described thus). No, the physics of my camera and its lenses. The camera's body is twice the size of the stationmaster's house, and I couldn't possibly get the same angle. I had to perch it on the top of the embankment, but the top of the embankment isn't wide enough.

 

So, this is the best I can do (I tried several angles). However, I don't think this diminishes the value of actually modelling a prototype location.......

 

Even though I'd moved the wooden planter beforehand when doing some videoing!!!!

Grass isn’t long enough, ruined it for me.

 

 

I think there’s a word for people like me…. 🤣

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

 

If you can find a reasonably large and unblemished mirror, it's possible to position the mirror more or less where you want the camera to be (propped up at a suitable angle) and then shoot into the mirror from the opposite direction. The physical size of the camera is no longer the limiting factor, so you can get suitably close to rail height. It does need some trial and error, and the mirror obviously degrades the image to a degree, but it might be fun just for the ability to get exactly the same perspective as the prototype shots. Needless to say the image needs to be flipped afterwards.

Worth a try, Al,

 

Though propping up the camera in such a restricted space would still be difficult. I know others use much smaller cameras, but I just can't get on with them.

 

I've used a vanity mirror for laying track, ensuring accurate alignment.

 

 

As has Norman Solomon. It's hard to believe that this shot is from 14 years ago!

 

 

Still, it helps to produce perfect trackwork.

 

Norman tells me he plans to retire next year. I'll believe it when I see it! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[gr.king]

3 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Grass isn’t long enough, ruined it for me.

 

 

I think there’s a word for people like me…. 🤣

Needs a good crop of dandelions too, if I'm interpreting the original image correctly.

[Tony Wright]

'Wrong way round brakes' in ECML sets?

 

Not uncommon in steam days, it would seem..............

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Though the majority was the right way round............

 

 

Please respect copyright restrictions on these images.

 

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

Even more.............

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright restrictions apply. 

 

When sifting through these marvellous images (scores of them), about a quarter had the brakes the 'wrong way round' so to speak. Also, quite a few had carriages 'outside' the brakes; strengtheners? 

[Tony Wright]

Another thing I've noticed is how hard it is for me to identify some of the trains I've just posted pictures of. Looking through my appropriate BR C&WW notices, so few actually match.

 

Could it be that most pictures were taken on summer Saturdays? 

 

I have to say, this is an approach I adopt when making-up my own trains; find a prototype picture and follow that................

[DenysW]

11 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

find a prototype picture

I note that on the photo of 60110, one of the two lamps is bent forwards and downwards. The other is not. Have that picture laminated ready for when the models have the lamps less than perfect and some-one comments.

[Barry Ten]

Just an example of using a mirror to get a shot that wouldn't otherwise be possible:

 

 

The mirror is propped up at an angle to the tracks.

 

 

Shooting into the mirror then gives a low angle that couldn't be achieved with the camera resting on the rails. The image isn't as sharp as it would be (probably helps to have a clean mirror) but it does offer an otherwise tricky perspective.

 

[LNER4479]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Could it be that most pictures were taken on summer Saturdays? 

 

I would say an emphatic 'yes' to that. And not just based on your photos but in a more general sense. Aside from the privileged few, most railway enthusiasts worked Mon-Fri, so opportunities for weekday photography was limited. Added to which, paid holiday leave was less common 'back then'.

 

I'm convinced that, overall, there is a disproportionate number of weekend photographs from the steam era. Saturday lineside; Sunday shed visits (organised or otherwise) when more locos were stabled for the day and the chance of a 'cop' was correspondingly greater.

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

Just an example of using a mirror to get a shot that wouldn't otherwise be possible:

 

 

The mirror is propped up at an angle to the tracks.

 

 

Shooting into the mirror then gives a low angle that couldn't be achieved with the camera resting on the rails. The image isn't as sharp as it would be (probably helps to have a clean mirror) but it does offer an otherwise tricky perspective.

 

Thanks Al,

 

I'll give it a try..............

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

It was only through a conversation with Mark Arscott (Markits) on Friday that I learned of the death of Trevor Cousens of Mercian Models.

 

A lovely bloke, and a great help with regard to his kits.

 

I built this from one of them............

 

 

Made in EM for service on Rob Kinsey's Merthyr Riverside, Ian Rathbone painted it.

 

A testament to a very good kit indeed. Another manufacturer gone!

 

RIP, Trevor.

 

You can see Merthyr at Doncaster next February. 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by Tony Wright

[EHertsGER]

You’ve captured the scale and heft of this locomotive perfectly. Well done!

Edited November 20, 2022 by EHertsGER

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, EHertsGER said:

You’ve captured the scale and heft of this locomotive perfectly. Well done!

That's very kind of you, though that's probably more down to the excellent kit and Ian Rathbone's superlative painting/weathering. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[robertcwp]

23 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Even more.............

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright restrictions apply. 

 

When sifting through these marvellous images (scores of them), about a quarter had the brakes the 'wrong way round' so to speak. Also, quite a few had carriages 'outside' the brakes; strengtheners? 

Wrong way round brakes seem more common in 1960s images than those from the mid-1950s and also in images of Saturday and other dated or second-tier workings. Brakes not at the end could be due to strengtheners being added on Fridays or Saturdays or because the train has several portions, some of which only have one brake. For example, the down White Rose in winter 1961-2 had CK, BSK, TSO on the rear as the Bradford Exchange portion. The Hull portion of the 10.20 am from King's Cross was the same. The Hull portion on the rear of the 2.10 pm from King's Cross was FK, BSO, SK, TSO and this section was at the front of the balancing up working.

[Dunsignalling]

Only a guess, but I wonder if many of the trains featuring van-inward brakes might be Saturday Relief sets that had been made up in something of a hurry on Friday without enough time for turning them. 

 

John

[Tony Wright]

With just a couple of locos left to sell from the Brian Lee collection, it looks like 'job done'. Thanks to all those who've bought the locos/carriages/trucks. 

 

Speaking of buying, I've decided to acquire these............... At least for the time being. 

 

 

Seen before (but not from this angle), having completely rebuilt it mechanically I thought it might get a run on Shap. 

 

It now runs beautifully.

 

 

Another good runner (now!) is this DJH 'Princess Coronation'. I think Brian must have bought this off ebay (builder/painter unknown), but oh what a dud runner. Despite its Portescap, it was jerky and displayed a pronounced tight spot. So off with the rods, bearings broached and then re-erection. The result, silky-smooth running. 

 

Why is that so many good-looking kit-built locos run so poorly? It's as if they're built for just a glass case existence. 

 

Correct nine-spoked bogie wheels almost completed the job, though why no brakes are present I don't know; something I'll attend to. 

 

Another possible Shap-runner? 

 

 

A Nu-Cast 'Mickey Mouse' Class 2 2-6-0 (builder/painter unknown). This wasn't too bad as a runner, just needing a mechanical clean and oiling. 

 

Again, I've fitted correct-type pony wheels. 

 

 

Another dud runner; this Millholme Ivatt 'Flying Pig'. Again, Portescap-powered, but hopeless pick-ups and the valve gear coming loose militated on good performance. So, new pick-ups installed and the motion fixed, and now a sweet performer.

 

It was painted in the glossiest black - most-unnatural, so I've applied dry-brush weathering. 

 

Correct pattern pony wheels finish it off. 

 

As intimated, I'll keep these (I've paid for them) for the time being, but they're not really suitable for Little Bytham, especially the Stanier Pacifics.

 

More to come................

 

 

[Tony Wright]

The two big Staniers are of no use for LB, but the smaller pair?

 

 

Though 'Mickey Mice' were allocated to 16A (and could have worked over the M&GNR), it's stretching a point too far to have one in (barely) green. 

 

Still, I like the imagery.........

 

 

A black one would be more-appropriate.

 

This has a much-altered Hornby body under which I built a Comet set of frames. Acquired from a deceased modeller's estate, Geoff Haynes painted it. 

 

I suppose a Bachmann 'Mickey Mouse' might be the way go for an Ivatt 2MT 2-6-0.....

 

 

As shown by Mark Branson earlier this year with his detailed/weathered example (though it's in reverse gear). 

 

The same goes for the Ivatt 'Flying Pig'......

 

 

Especially one weathered by Tim Shackleton.

 

I renumbered/detailed this example, one big visual bonus being my lopping off of the gross NEM pocket on the pony. 

 

 

Still, an all-metal Ivatt 4MT 2-6-0 does have a presence. 

 

Since the MR/M&GNR section of LB is much more fluid in its timescale depiction, then I think this fits in quite well in this immediate post-Nationalisation view.

 

I'd have been approaching my fourth birthday at the time of this picture (1950), so cannot claim any tangible memory. 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Compound2632]

43 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

'Mickey Mice'

 

'Mickey Mouses' surely?

 

Likewise louses not lice, as in:

 

He's your guy
When stocks are high
But beware when they start to descend

It's then that those louses
Go back to their spouses
Diamonds are a girl's best friend

 

And note how the plural of 'spouse' isn't 'spice'...

Edited November 20, 2022 by Compound2632

[DenysW]

44 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

It's then that those louses
Go back to their spouses

Risky to use popular culture as a guide. I believe that Tom in 'Tom & Jerry' uttered the words "I hate them meeces to pieces!".