66 type things

[Gandalf]

Still feel that way Trev,
And we laughed about mobile chicken sheds a few weeks ago.
seems that 120 plus years later said chickens have come to roost on our rails.
John (G)

[DaveJ]

As I understand it what we're discussing here is the look of the 66s,and not whether they are actually any good at the work they do,which doesn't seem to be in doubt.I agree that variations may be seen in different parts of the country and that you may have to actually make an effort to go see them if you wish,but,as has been pointed out,they are still class 66s.
I've made a comment on a photo in the gallery that the shape of the loco doesn't lend itself to long lens shots,the body seems too compressed ,but maybe that's me - has anyone else noticed this ? They look o.k. in scenic shots.
Myself,as far as looks go,I can take 'em or leave 'em,but I don't feel that they're in the same league as Deltics,Westerns,Warships,the 50s and quite a few others I could mention.
And those livery variations.......

[swisstrains]

Originally Posted by DaveJ

......................
I've made a comment on a photo in the gallery that the shape of the loco doesn't lend itself to long lens shots,the body seems too compressed ,but maybe that's me - has anyone else noticed this ? They look o.k. in scenic shots.....................

I agree Dave. I will go even further and say that I think too much use is made of long lenses in railway photography nowadays. Most digital cameras are now supplied with zoom lenses and I get the feeling that many of today's photographers think it's a waste not to use them despite the distortion they cause. Apologies for going off topic.

[66521]

I'm not sure that using zoom lenses creates significant distortion. Taking the 66's as a case in point, they have a fairly flat front profile anyway. Perhaps photographing something like an HST on high zoom would give it a more compressed and flattened appearance than otherwise but I honestly can't see it in many photos.

As for their popularity compared to 50's, deltics, etc. I am sure it is only a matter of time - perhaps 10 years, and more people will warm to them as the first few class members get withdrawn. Look at the popularity of the 60's nowadays. I remember everyone slating them and wishing all the 37's and 47's could remain in service a little longer. Less than 20 years in service and the 60's have a huge following now! How times change....

[paul miller]

Originally Posted by Trev

I take your point, and also that of Les, but at the end of the day, they are all Class 66's.

My love of railways is almost entirely an aesthetic one. I do realise that the railway is there to do a job, and I can appreciate that the 66 is a good piece of engineering...but speaking as an ex-trainspotter, I just find them so boring!

I suppose I'm now feeling like the older steam lads did in 1968.

Hi Trev,
I am old enough to have had the heartache when steam went, then when the Deltics went, then the 40's and 45's, then my beloved 37's and 20's.
I am sure I will feel the same when the HST's go, if ever they do.
They call it progress dont they, though we all have our own opinions wether it is or not.
Paul.

[swisstrains]

Originally Posted by 66521

............I'm not sure that using zoom lenses creates significant distortion. Taking the 66's as a case in point, they have a fairly flat front profile anyway. Perhaps photographing something like an HST on high zoom would give it a more compressed and flattened appearance than otherwise but I honestly can't see it in many photos.........................

Like everything it's all down to personal taste.
It's not so much the front end compression that bothers me but more the bodyside. Looking back through your photos and those of many others, it is the ones where the livery detail and numbers/letters can still be made out that appeal to me the most and invariably these are the ones taken on a lower telephoto setting.

[66521]

OK, you're talking about bodyside compression. I can see where you're coming from there. However, my problem is that, generally whenever I take a photo on very low or no zoom at all, I find that the front of the train may be clearly visible, but the rear often seems to be so far away from the camera that it disappears basically to a point in the distance. The opposite distortion then becomes a problem. Nearby objects appear vastly larger than distant ones so photographing a train of any appreciable length is almost pointless.

[swisstrains]

Originally Posted by 66521

..............However, my problem is that, generally whenever I take a photo on very low or no zoom at all, I find that the front of the train may be clearly visible, but the rear often seems to be so far away from the camera that it disappears basically to a point in the distance. The opposite distortion then becomes a problem. Nearby objects appear vastly larger than distant ones so photographing a train of any appreciable length is almost pointless.

This is obviously where we differ Darryl. To me having the rear of the train disappearing into the distance is not a problem but simply a fact of life. That is how it appears to the naked eye. To you it is a distortion that you choose to correct artificially. As I said it's all down to personal taste.