SCC - Sparkshot Custom Creations

[grovenor-2685]

Knuckles,
You might find this helpful for dealing with perspective in photos.
http://www.templot.com/martweb/info_files/gimp_example.htm?zoom_highlight=gimp
Regards

[Knuckles]

Thanks Keith, that will help no doubt.

Also thanks andrewnummelin, that helps too.

How do we know how accurate the drawing is (given all the previous page stuff) and also how do I go about getting one, email?

I'll have a look on the Cambrian site again too.

Do any of you agree or have any personal views on the previous entry I made?

always assuming that the real loco and the official drawing actually matched.

Yeah,

Could you please post the link to where the mention is in the website. I did have a suitable link in PM but it has gone.

[Will L]

...

C) - We (me included) tend to believe that the info we have is correct and everyone else is wrong. Your scale drawing or railway book is
king, bugger the rest! ...

How true. Keep up the good work, it's an interesting intellectual exercise if nothing else.

[jim s-w]

A lot will repent on if the official drawing is pre build or an as built drawing. One relatively famous example was the Lima class 50 where the roof matched the official drawing. Problem was modifications were made during construction so the real locos didn't end up matching the drawing Lima used.

HTH

Jim

[Knuckles]

Well, I got an update. As well as immensely frustrating I'm finding this a lot of fun too. I've always been a truth seeker.


I've took the above suggested photographs of a Furness K2 and done the same Pain bodge...

This picture...

[img=http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k112/sparkshot/FR36.jpg]

Was first imported into Photoshop and twisted anti clockwise slightly in attempt to get it more level.

The thick red bar under the running plate has no pixels visible meaning it is straight, so the photograph is almost straight.

After that I did the same things as before, only I measured the driving wheels axle to axle and also the rods to get a back up measurement.

Result?




The same as on the Cambrian edit above.

5’ 9” + 6’ 8” + 8’ 3”

Although like the Cambrian I think maybe the last dim' should be 8' 6".

On this edit however the bogeys are less than 6' but I wouldn't say 5' 9"

As for bogey wheel diameter, we have the 3' 6" again - the bigger ones.

See what you think, I'll pop back later.

[grovenor-2685]

Have you seen this?
http://www.scalefour.org/resources/furness.html
Regards

[Knuckles]

Have you seen this?
http://www.scalefour.org/resources/furness.html
Regards

I hadn't seen it to be honest, thanks for pointing me to it.
For the K2...

Sharp Stewart 4-4-0 Various 1896 3' 6"

I've about convinced myself that the bogeys were 3'6" unless there was variation in the builds. Still trying to figure out the wheelbases though.

According to both my edits it is looking like 5’ 9” + 6’ 8” + 8’ 6” is the answer for both prototypes but the pic edits to me look less than 8' 6" and they look more like 6' 4.5" or something thus I said 6' 3" as on the last dim' the only measurement there vying for the podium as the truth is 8' 3" in source material.

I don't know how things can get so convoluted.

[Winander]

Would a manufacturer change the wheelbase for another customer by 3 inches? That said, I think you mentioned different manufacturers and these things were probably craftsmen built, so easy to change.

Is the superstructure significantly different in major dimensions - this may indicate a change to the chassis likely? If the Cambrian version was built later than the Furness (or vice versa), experience may have lead to a change to the chassis.

Whilst what you have done with the drawings is extremely useful and something I have done myself, don't forget that perspective applies to the outer edges even if, as in the case of the Furness loco, it appears square on in the centre. If I were you, I would extend the wheelbase to 8' 6" on your Cambrian drawing and see what it looks like - the photo is a bit murky, but I would say you haven't hit the axle centre on the rear driver. If you have a dimension for the length over the buffer beams, check that - in fact check every dimension you can get. It is laborious and may lead to new anomalies, but you only need do it once.

The Cumbrian Railways Association has drawings of four versions of a Furness 4-4-0. I'm not sure which you are modelling, but they all shown 8' 6" between the drivers, and a 6' wheelbase bogey except for the 1896 version which is 5' 9". The bogey wheels are all 3' 6" diameter for the 6' wheelbase, and 3' diameter for the 5' 9" wheelbase. From the info you have given, it appears you have (correctly) modelled the 1896 version as far as wheelbases and wheel sizes.
http://www.cumbrianrailways.org.uk/Drawings.php

good luck

[Knuckles]

Would a manufacturer change the wheelbase for another customer by 3 inches? That said, I think you mentioned different manufacturers and these things were probably craftsmen built, so easy to change.

Yup, this is what I and a few other have been thinking. It could account for all the discrepancies, either that or some draftsmen had one or two many glasses of Port.

Is the superstructure significantly different in major dimensions - this may indicate a change to the chassis likely? If the Cambrian version was built later than the Furness (or vice versa), experience may have lead to a change to the chassis.

Maybe, like your customer change idea It is possible but these ideas seem to lack documented evidence, and the evidence that is available conflicts.

Whilst what you have done with the drawings is extremely useful and something I have done myself

Ta very mooowch.

, don't forget that perspective applies to the outer edges even if, as in the case of the Furness loco, it appears square on in the centre....

I couldn't agree more. I mentioned this in the first edit of the Cambrian that the perspective will inevitable skew things and give a false reading as the perspective shifts.

...If I were you, I would extend the wheelbase to 8' 6" on your Cambrian drawing and see what it looks like - the photo is a bit murky, but I would say you haven't hit the axle centre on the rear driver.

Your probably right, after looking at it I guess the lines need to be pushed outwards even more for it to fit the perspective better...which would push it to 8'6"

The Cumbrian Railways Association has drawings of four versions of a Furness 4-4-0. I'm not sure which you are modelling, but they all shown 8' 6" between the drivers, and a 6' wheelbase bogey except for the 1896 version which is 5' 9". The bogey wheels are all 3' 6" diameter for the 6' wheelbase, and 3' diameter for the 5' 9" wheelbase. From the info you have given, it appears you have (correctly) modelled the 1896 version as far as wheelbases and wheel sizes.
http://www.cumbrianrailways.org.uk/Drawings.php

good luck

Many thanks for this link. Diagram 4 and the 96 drawing are to the best of my knowledge a K2 and I used one of them before.

I think I'll nab these drawings as potential future projects. How accurate are they? (Rhetorical - I don't know but they look good)

The Furness K2 model I have currently is modelled with a wheelbase of

5’ 9” + 6’ 8” + 8’ 6”

As my two Paint bodges seem to give the same result above if you ignore the last reading being less than 8'6" and put that down to perspective and as you and another on RMweb seems to have come to the conclusion that this is the correct wheelbase, coupled with me also being lead to believe the same I might go with it.

The K2 model has that wheelbase but is designed to be used with 3' wheels. I already have made the Cambrian chassis which are basically the same only they have been made to work with the 3'6" wheels instead. If this is all sound then I'll just need to modify the instructions and maybe the chassis names and that way it will give everyone the choice of what Bogey wheels to use. A chassis for the 3' wheels can be made to fit larger wheels with a little filing of parts, no biggy, or use the larger one when it is available.

I am going to wait and see if I get an email reply from the HMRS and see if anyone here or RMweb has any more suggestions or knowledge that can be collated into a cohesive dough, then I'll cook it and let you know how it all tastes. Then I can sell some cakes.


EDIT: Just to quote myself from earlier...

Additional Issue: For the tender I have different sources with different wheelbases too. So far it is a toss up between 6' 3", 6'6", and 6' perfectly. The model is 6' 3" but currently on hold due to these issues.
The model is designed with the 3'6" tender wheels, but other sources are saying 3'10" and another even larger than 3'6" so I'm drinking whisky.

I'm on tea now, anyway. This is the other issue that to me is a pig but unless something more solid can be evidenced then I will not change the model. To my eye it looks right and is the right height with the wheels.

with the 6' 3" + 6' 3" wheelbase If it is wrong then it will be 1mm wrong and 2 after accumulation.

If I change it to a 6' 0" + 6' 0" or 6' 6" + 6' 6" wheelbase and it is wrong it will be 4mm's wrong after accumulation so going in between seems good.
I've had similar issues with the length of the smokebox. Some drawings scale at 10mm's, some at 13mm's, some somewhere in between. Model is 11.5mm's as a median and looks good to my eye, no one has whinged yet.

If I do finally decide on all the above then it won't suit some but we do the best we can. Can't please everyone!

Either way I think this is the first time a FR K2 and soon a Class 61 has been available in 4mm (I may be wrong) so it should be good news even If there are a few issues according to some sources. Hopefully they will be well received, so far people seem happy that they can have one.

[Knuckles]

To everyone - I have finally made the decision. You can read about it here or for another angle on RMweb.

I've re-opened for sale the K2 related stuff that was locked due to this research. If you disagree with my eventual conclusions I sincerely apologise but I can't bounce forever as we are going in circles.

The Chassis have undergone a rename and the information inside is updated.

The New Cambrian Locomotive and chassis will be released as soon as Shapeways auto check system gives the green light.

This isn't anything to do with 'New Year' as I'm a true April fool and believe the true new year is more around that time, specifically Pesach/Pascha/Passover, and what we have is a replacement. But you can research it if it interests you.


So going by what we generally call the New year I now officially announce the release of the

Cambrian Railways Class 61

...just as soon as I get the last green tick. Look out for it.

[Knuckles]

Ok it's up.

Cambrian Class 61 locomotive and chassis now for sale.

[Alan Rhodes]

I have just picked up on this thread. I am the Cambrian Railways Company Steward, cambrian@hmrs.org.uk, for the HMRS but I have not received any email.
There is good news and bad news:
1. The GWR issued a weight diagram, A.32. This shows bogie wheel dia 3'6", driving wheel dia 6'0" and tender wheel dia 3'10".
2. Wheel bases - bogie 5'6", driving wheels 8'3", rear bogie wheel to front driving wheel 6'6 and a half". Tender 2 X 6'0".
3. I know of no official drawing but one might exist.
4. There is a very strong likely hood that the late Mike Morton-Lloyd made a drawing in 7mm scale.

A Happy New Year to all

[Knuckles]

Hello,,I sent a queery to a drawing archivist but if it didn't go through now worries.

The data you give is appreciated.

It is however info and part of the argument already wrapped up in this 'Cambrian Conundrum.' Can you put that exact data on top of the two photograph edits I did and soundly debunk the conclusions?

I ask because so far these two pic edits are the only thing that has convinced me of any particular sway due to all the written and drawn evidence being a tossed salad.
Hope you see what I mean! The tender conclusion I think might be correct though so I kay in the future do a new version but not at the moment as it will take a long time and if it is out (might not be) then only a tweak. I'll post this on RMweb too.

[Noel]

This isn't anything to do with 'New Year' as I'm a true April fool and believe the true new year is more around that time, specifically Pesach/Pascha/Passover, and what we have is a replacement.

The new year started on 25 March until 1600 [Scotland] or 1752 [Ireland, England and Wales], so the use of 1 January is still something of a novelty, but I expect you knew that.

Noel

[Knuckles]

Aye, I'm going back before the creation of the calender we are using though. The Hebrew calender (not the same as the modern Jewish one but similar) is the one that was basically dumped for the Gregorian and Julian ones, and of course on the earlier calenders the 1st of the year didn't always have the same date as they relied more on the observation of the skies thus the shifting March-April time frame. Makes more sense to me in some ways, especially as new life is 'Spring' - ing up around then.

I think the tax man knows something too!


A question about future possibilities:

Someone on RMweb said they think a reason pre grouping is less modelled is partly due to a lack of suitable rolling stock rather than engines. I have no doubt that is one reason, I've always wanted Hornby or someone to make some nice RTR 4 wheel coaches and such like.

Anyway, with the 3D printing process I don't think it is really viable because it is expensive mostly anyway and as they calculate cost predominantly on the space it takes in the printing tray and the time it takes a full size Gresley coach will cost 2-4 times the amount of a medium loco body. A 4 wheel coach will be roughly the same and a 5 plank wagon not much cheaper.

Any ideas?

[John Duffy]

Someone on RMweb said they think a reason pre grouping is less modelled is partly due to a lack of suitable rolling stock rather than engines. I have no doubt that is one reason, I've always wanted Hornby or someone to make some nice RTR 4 wheel coaches and such like.

That is probably, "partly" true. I can only speak from my own experience and will accept the parochial nature of my modelling focus, but for those of us modelling the Scottish scene, there is a general lacking of pre-group availability. In fact there was probably more available 20 years ago, albeit to a 20 years ago standard, but things are very limited. There is, I believe, a kit in development for a Caledonian Jumbo, a loco which for almost anyone modelling anywhere in Scotland in the BR era, for many in the LMS period and for all those of a True Line persuasion, is a near essential. For followers of the other side, the J37 is similarly long-lived, lasting to the very end of steam. Why these have never been the focus of some of the larger manufactures is surprising when considered against some of their previous choices, if though understandable given the low numbers of such modellers.

There are though pockets of resistance; Lochgorm works, producing some nice Highland items, Caley Coaches offering some locos as well as their carriages. Worsley Works do some nice coach bodies for GNSR, which I can run behind the only loco available, the PDK class F or V, the LNER D40. There are no GNSR wagons available; none at all.

The reason I have for not moving to the pre-group era is not the lacking of any one element; locos, coaches or wagons, but a lacking in all three. Now for those modelling other parts of the world, that may not be such a problem. Our little group of modellers locally has North Staffs, L&Y and GWR in its midst and they seem reasonably well supported by the trade. On the the other hand, I have struggled to get someone to produce a GNSR chimney, that would at least allow me to scratch build a loco. One of the problems that I have come across is that unless you know who to speak to, getting anything new produced is all but impossible.

The advent of 3D printing at least offers some prospect that things may change in the future. Whilst a complete loco body is probably a great option - one that I would use if it were available - I would think that for many potential pre-group modellers, or those who model the less popular railways, the possibility of getting parts made would be a significant benefit. It would be hugely beneficial if I could source say chimneys, domes, buffers, tender flares, coach door vents, wagon J hangers etc (thats not a random list, its the parts that I am struggling with and that are preventing me scratch building). I'm sure others are in a similar position. Until things do change, the option to model the pre-group era appears overly challenging.

John

[Alan Rhodes]

The data you give is appreciated.

Thank you.

It is however info and part of the argument already wrapped up in this 'Cambrian Conundrum.

Yes, it is info consisting of measurements from a source not already quoted I believe but stand to be corrected.

Can you put that exact data on top of the two photograph edits I did and soundly debunk the conclusions?

Yes and no! You favour the photographic edit measurements yet how accurate are they? What is the measurement error? You mention some of the errors such as a need for perspective correction and horizontal level of the photographs. I note you had only one Cam Rys photograph to work on, do you want more? I have two views of the same locomotive both side on. I have taken some measurements off your Cam Rys loco and measured against a known measurement on the image, the GWR cabside numberplate. The driving wheelbase I make 8' 3", bogie wheelbase 5' 8" and driving wheel to bogie wheel of 6' 8". So 1 at 100%, 1 at 103% and 1 at 102% of the drawing but this includes my measurement errors!

I ask because so far these two pic edits are the only thing that has convinced me of any particular sway due to all the written and drawn evidence being a tossed salad.
Hope you see what I mean!

I do see what you mean and as of yet there is no definitive answer and there may not be but there is another dimension to consider and that is of the purchasing modeller. I will not go there...

Alan

[grovenor-2685]

Since there seemed to be some discrepancies between the drawings on the Cumbrian Rlys site and Mike Peascod's figures on our site I sent an email to Mike to see if he could clarify.
He has sent back the attached note which should help.
Mike also noted that Dragon Models make a 7mm kit and are considering a 4mm version.

Furness_Railway_4-4-0_details-1.pdf

Regards

PS. Will add document when I find out why the upload is not working for me on this new version of the forum
OK its worked with Edge, did not work with Firefox for some reason!

[Knuckles]

Hi Alan, many thanks for having a look and measuring too.

8' 3", bogie wheelbase 5' 8" and driving wheel to bogie wheel of 6' 8". So 1 at 100%, 1 at 103% and 1 at 102% of the drawing but this includes my measurement errors!

As I seem to believe the pictures are showing a wheelbase of


5'9" + 6'8" + 8'3"

with the last value possible being 8'6" due to perspective it is pretty close to your
5'8" + 6'8" + 8'3"

Basically your conclusion is for the sake of arguing over an inch the same.

The models are thus 1mm out on the driving wheel base -IF- this conclusion turns out to be the unquestionable truth.

I do see what you mean and as of yet there is no definitive answer and there may not be...

This is the problem and why I guess Hornby, Bachmann et all sometimes make the same model, Tornado and the Shunters Truck being one example and coming up with differencies.

Plus maybe the Cambrian & Furness did indeed go through some dimension changes? It isn't unrealistic but we seem to lack documented proof.

...but there is another dimension to consider and that is of the purchasing modeller. I will not go there...

But you already did.

I am considering purchasing modellers, that's why I have made such a big deal about conflicting information in the first place and tried my hardest to find the answer for us all. I even made seperate files and spent a whole day changing a 61 body and chassis to a wheelbase of

5'6" + 6'6.5"+8'3"

as I thought that would have a good chance of being right. I have a few emails of people who are convinced it is with a good selection of sources, but the photograph edits seem to have a problem with it and so do the other sources.

I'm convinced of the bigger bogies too, but again, did some indeed at some time run with only 3' examples?

At the time of posting (when I shown some of the 3D stuff at work) if that new wheelbase was correct I was going to redo literally everything on all the K2's, chassis and all but as it seems to be that the K2 & Class 61 model wheelbase is either,

A) Correct
B) Only 1mm/3" out on the driver wheelbase.

...so I've finally decided to leave it as is.

The tender I'm still looking into. I have concluded the wheels were probably 3'10" after all but the wheelbase again has 3 different ideas all vying for the podium.

the K2 & Class 61 model wheelbase is either,

A) Correct
B) Only 1mm/3" out on the driver wheelbase.

...so I've finally decided to leave it as is.

Now I can only applogise to those who prefer a different wheelbase but as I think this thread here and on RMweb has established, finding the truth of a matter is sometimes much harder to do than simply read books and drawings and take them at face value - at least in some cases.

I don't know if the case will ever be completely closed or not, that's the worrying thing.

Many thanks for your help in this too. I know it can take a lot of time looking into these things.

Since there seemed to be some discrepancies between the drawings on the Cumbrian Rlys site and Mike Peascod's figures on our site I sent an email to Mike to see if he could clarify.

Thanks Keith. (EDIT - Checking out your PDF) - EDIT 2 - Nope, it won't let me open it. EDIT 3 - Opened Google Chrome instead of Internet Explorer - Worked! Looking..)

Since around 2010 I was in contact with Dragon Models as I wanted a Class 61 or a K2 and we were in email discussion on and off for about 2 years. I even sent some photographs that they were happy to recieve, but the project kept getting pushed back a year, then another year and then finally they told me they were not going to make one as there seemed to be too much variation. I wonder if he means class variation or data variation! Anyway, if they have finally changed their mind fair enough.

Small update - Pheonix K2 now has the later chimney and the smoke box pulled back a bit, should be ready tomorrow.

[Knuckles]

Someone on RMweb said they think a reason pre grouping is less modelled is partly due to a lack of suitable rolling stock rather than engines. I have no doubt that is one reason, I've always wanted Hornby or someone to make some nice RTR 4 wheel coaches and such like.

That is probably, "partly" true. I can only speak from my own experience and will accept the parochial nature of my modelling focus, but for those of us modelling the Scottish scene, there is a general lacking of pre-group availability. In fact there was probably more available 20 years ago, albeit to a 20 years ago standard, but things are very limited. There is, I believe, a kit in development for a Caledonian Jumbo, a loco which for almost anyone modelling anywhere in Scotland in the BR era, for many in the LMS period and for all those of a True Line persuasion, is a near essential. For followers of the other side, the J37 is similarly long-lived, lasting to the very end of steam. Why these have never been the focus of some of the larger manufactures is surprising when considered against some of their previous choices, if though understandable given the low numbers of such modellers.

There are though pockets of resistance; Lochgorm works, producing some nice Highland items, Caley Coaches offering some locos as well as their carriages. Worsley Works do some nice coach bodies for GNSR, which I can run behind the only loco available, the PDK class F or V, the LNER D40. There are no GNSR wagons available; none at all.

The reason I have for not moving to the pre-group era is not the lacking of any one element; locos, coaches or wagons, but a lacking in all three. Now for those modelling other parts of the world, that may not be such a problem. Our little group of modellers locally has North Staffs, L&Y and GWR in its midst and they seem reasonably well supported by the trade. On the the other hand, I have struggled to get someone to produce a GNSR chimney, that would at least allow me to scratch build a loco. One of the problems that I have come across is that unless you know who to speak to, getting anything new produced is all but impossible.

The advent of 3D printing at least offers some prospect that things may change in the future. Whilst a complete loco body is probably a great option - one that I would use if it were available - I would think that for many potential pre-group modellers, or those who model the less popular railways, the possibility of getting parts made would be a significant benefit. It would be hugely beneficial if I could source say chimneys, domes, buffers, tender flares, coach door vents, wagon J hangers etc (thats not a random list, its the parts that I am struggling with and that are preventing me scratch building). I'm sure others are in a similar position. Until things do change, the option to model the pre-group era appears overly challenging.

John

That's very interesting and enlightening, many thanks. I'll likely re-read this a few times.

I have struggled to get someone to produce a GNSR chimney, that would at least allow me to scratch build a loco. -----One of the problems that I have come across is that unless you know who to speak to, getting anything new produced is all but impossible-----......the possibility of getting parts made would be a significant benefit. It would be hugely beneficial if I could source say chimneys, domes, buffers, tender flares, coach door vents, wagon J hangers etc (thats not a random list, its the parts that I am struggling with and that are preventing me scratch building). I'm sure others are in a similar position. Until things do change, the option to model the pre-group era appears overly challenging.

Maybe I can sort something out then. For Chimney's if I'd do some of them I'd need to know the boiler diameters etc. Drawings and all that. The problem with a printed chimney not on a loco body is that the base may need to be fatter for printing tolerances. If that is the case then other than filing the bases you may loose that scale thin base.

[Knuckles]

IMPORTANT!

Thanks to Keith and Mike ..? Who gets the credit. Also am I allowed to post the PDF about, he asked for credit. If it is possible for the info sources to be cited regarding the variation that'd be great too. If not for my benefit others who may be reading.

If what Mike is saying is true then I'm guessing we can account this as documented evidence of variation. Something that seemed to only be speculation.

As a result I'm not going to throw out the Cambrian 61 I just said is for sale, instead it is on hold again and I can now grab that version I did the alternate wheelbase for and finish it off.

I could also release this one and release another with the alternate wheelbase as a choice I guess.


Thoughts please. I'm trying to get this right and you are all collectively a great help.


If the much shorter wheelbase is the truth on the Cambrian then how does it fair with the pic edits that seem to not be?

[grovenor-2685]

IMPORTANT!

Thanks to Keith and Mike ..? Who gets the credit. Also am I allowed to post the PDF about, he asked for credit. If it is possible for the info sources to be cited regarding the variation that'd be great too. If not for my benefit others who may be reading.

If what Mike is saying is true then I'm guessing we can account this as documented evidence of variation. Something that seemed to only be speculation.

Cite Mike Peascod of the Cumbrian Railways Asscciation as your source and include the pdf. Mike has spent many years researching these issues.
Regards

[Knuckles]

IMPORTANT!

Thanks to Keith and Mike ..? Who gets the credit. Also am I allowed to post the PDF about, he asked for credit. If it is possible for the info sources to be cited regarding the variation that'd be great too. If not for my benefit others who may be reading.

If what Mike is saying is true then I'm guessing we can account this as documented evidence of variation. Something that seemed to only be speculation.

Cite Mike Peascod of the Cumbrian Railways Asscciation as your source and include the pdf. Mike has spent many years researching these issues.
Regards

Awesome. Many thanks.

This is all good news. This is the sort of thing I have been looking for - clear documented proof on variations rather than simply saying "Drawing/book A says this" then another saying "Drawing B says that."

I feel I can stand on this easier.

Is it possible to have the sources or books Mike used quoted so researchers can read the information first hand? I know some will want that.

The mention that a different wheelbase was delivered to different railways is the greatest thing for me but if I (and others) could read that first hand from the historical records it would be good.

I'm happy to go with this but others may want to see it

[grovenor-2685]

If you would like more info from Mike ask him nicely via the email link from here as he rarely reads the forum.
His user name is "Mike peascod" look him up in the members list (now hidden in the hamburger).
Regards

[Knuckles]

Ok many thanks.

Tomorrow night or Sunday I shall do that.

If I'm winding some people up by drawing a conclusion contrary to yours (anyone who has helped) or seemingly not listening then I appologise. In my defence I think it is clear to all if you have been following this thread why I have a serious problem taking things at face value most of the time and like to get a collective opinion. It is also important to find corroboration. A single hole in a theory has potential to break it all so getting a cohesive solid image is a high value to me. Not always easy.

:/