ClikC Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 Hi All. I've been thinking Mk2's for my Thames-Clyde express project today, having done some quick and dirty wheel swaps to P4. My basic questions are, has anyone done any sprung/ working gangway connections, and what do you use for the ETH/buffer beam fittings? While I'm mainly thinking for the Bachmann Mk2s's at the moment, I'll be hoping to do Airfix Mk2D's later, hence keeping a brand out of the topic title. Obviously they major problem to my mind with the Bachmann Mk2's is the amount of slop in the plastic bearings on the B4 bogies. Which allows the the bogies to sit too low on the wheel set, and in turn obviously Bachmann have jacked up the swivel support on the bogies. Making for an overlarge gap between the coach body and Bogie frame. Probably correctable if I can sink some bearings into the B4 bogie, and file down the swivel support. But I am giving serious thought to opting for Bill Bedford bogies. Any input gratefully received. Regards Matt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 Have you written to Mike Clark at Masokits? Given that he produces some useful etches and working gangways for the Mk.1, maybe he could be encouraged to do something similar for the Mk.2. Just a thought.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClikC Posted July 3, 2010 Author Share Posted July 3, 2010 Hi All. I've been thinking Mk2's for my Thames-Clyde express project today, having done some quick and dirty wheel swaps to P4. My basic questions are, has anyone done any sprung/ working gangway connections, and what do you use for the ETH/buffer beam fittings? While I'm mainly thinking for the Bachmann Mk2s's at the moment, I'll be hoping to do Airfix Mk2D's later, hence keeping a brand out of the topic title. Obviously they major problem to my mind with the Bachmann Mk2's is the amount of slop in the plastic bearings on the B4 bogies. Which allows the the bogies to sit too low on the wheel set, and in turn obviously Bachmann have jacked up the swivel support on the bogies. Making for an overlarge gap between the coach body and Bogie frame. Probably correctable if I can sink some bearings into the B4 bogie, and file down the swivel support. But I am giving serious thought to opting for Bill Bedford bogies. Any input gratefully received. Regards Matt I had been thinking something along those lines, but figured Mk2's were probably past his own period of interest. Probably worth asking though, I'll include a letter with the order i'm planning to make with him for his various Ml1 bits. I was also wondering if perhaps it my be worth trying to adapt the masokit's gangways for Mk2's, someone could do say a quick etch to represent the later designs of face/ rubbing plate. Mk2s's are supposed to have the standard pullman gangway, and later builds from the Mk2a onwards have a Swindon redesigned one. The later build connections are obviously different, but the gangways on the Mk2s's don't look anything like the pullman gangways on the Mk1's to me... Mind you it could all be hidden in the recess. Regards Matt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 The Bachmann bogies eventually wear away if you don't at least fit bearings although its not such an issue if you don't have a roundy round. Sprung bogies do make a massive difference though. Do you have a good picture illustrating the revised mk2 faceplate? The masokits gangways for mk1s are very good although I would recommend putting some crepe paper down the sides as well as the top to hide the etch to make it more prototypical yet it'll still move fine if you only put glue on the edge. They do take a lot of time each though and i've only done two coaches so far! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClikC Posted July 3, 2010 Author Share Posted July 3, 2010 The Bachmann bogies eventually wear away if you don't at least fit bearings although its not such an issue if you don't have a roundy round. Sprung bogies do make a massive difference though. Do you have a good picture illustrating the revised mk2 faceplate? The masokits gangways for mk1s are very good although I would recommend putting some crepe paper down the sides as well as the top to hide the etch to make it more prototypical yet it'll still move fine if you only put glue on the edge. They do take a lot of time each though and i've only done two coaches so far! For the planned big layout, which will feature a canted reverse curve, I'm thinking full springing is going to be a must. I have to say though, I've been thinking about trying to fabricate a B4 bogie with proper coil springing on the axles and a coil sprung bolster plank with working traction bars, as per the prototype. Thats probably going for overkill mind. The eventual plan has always been to go full springing with the coaching stock, as I i really want my rakes to glide along. I was thinking along the lines of getting hold of some thin .02mm latex sheet (no sniggering at the back there) to do as you suggest. I've posted up a thread on Robert Carroll's BRCoachingStock yahoo group, as the Michael Harris book on Mk2's lacks any photo's of the Mk2z pullman gangways. But has a nice clear shots of the Swindon Improved gangway on pages 46 and 57. Regards Matt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 For the planned big layout, which will feature a canted reverse curve, I'm thinking full springing is going to be a must. I have to say though, I've been thinking about trying to fabricate a B4 bogie with proper coil springing on the axles and a coil sprung bolster plank with working traction bars, as per the prototype. Thats probably going for overkill mind. The eventual plan has always been to go full springing with the coaching stock, as I i really want my rakes to glide along. Regards Matt Sounds fun! If you want to go that route though have a chat to Brian Hanson as I believe he has now found a source of the correct coil springs for his class37/deltic bogie project. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClikC Posted July 4, 2010 Author Share Posted July 4, 2010 Sounds fun! If you want to go that route though have a chat to Brian Hanson as I believe he has now found a source of the correct coil springs for his class37/deltic bogie project. Excellent! I've been meaning to have another chat with him, any excuse is a good excuse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugsley Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 I was thinking along the lines of getting hold of some thin .02mm latex sheet I had no idea that was available - do you know where it can be obtained from, and if it's available in yellow, please? I think that it would be ideal for class 455 gangways. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 Hi Matt I already do the bogie steps and plan to do the end steps at some point. Reminds me - need to order more bogie steps. Cheers Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClikC Posted July 4, 2010 Author Share Posted July 4, 2010 I had no idea that was available - do you know where it can be obtained from, and if it's available in yellow, please? I think that it would be ideal for class 455 gangways. I was looking into it a while back, and it did take me to some dubious websites I have to admit, I have gotten my measurements wrong. 4D UK do from 0.16mm upwards in pretty much any color you could want. Fourdrubber shop .33mm and .45mm seam to be standard for fetish wear, and you can find those popular thicknesses on Ebay. Hi Matt I already do the bogie steps and plan to do the end steps at some point. Reminds me - need to order more bogie steps. Cheers Jim Hi Jim! I have some of your bogie steps jim, but haven't fitted them to anything as of yet. Have you got any further with thee coach end steps? I should get around to placing another little order with you, as I believe I have a set of SAB inserts outstanding with you. Regards Matt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 Hi Matt Not as yet - you do have some SAB inserts outstanding yes, just let me know when and where you want them posted. Cheers Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClikC Posted July 4, 2010 Author Share Posted July 4, 2010 Is this of any use? Mk2s aren't a strong point of mine so not sure if this is the correct gangway profile: Hi Steve, Thats the later Swindon Improved gangway design, as fitted to the Mk2a's onwards. Not quite what I'm interested in at this very moment in time, but really useful for when I start thinking about rake incorporating these later build Mk2's. Regards Matt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertcwp Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 The Mark II FKs had a rounded top to the inside of the gangway faceplate, as on Mark I stock. At a wild guess, this design was to make it easier to couple to pre-nationalisation stock with British Standard adaptor gangways. However the next Mark II hauled stock to emerge (the first of the TSOs) had a square shape to the inside of the gangway faceplate at the top but retaining the Mark I style sliding gangway end door. There is film and photographic evidence of early Mark II stock running with gangway covers, but this seems to have petered out by the late 1960s/early 1970s. See: Mark II with gangway cover. At least some of these covers were painted blue - see D&E on 35mm Vol 1 Watford Junction sequence for one. I have also seen photos of later Mark II variants running with the gangway covers, even though their new design of folding doors (introduced with Mark IIa) was intended to dispense with the covers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardTPM Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 The gangway rubbing plate was the same on most Mk.2 coaches, apart from the Mk.2 FKs which had a hybrid Mk.1/Mk.2 pattern. I have done rubbing plate etches for the Farish Mk.2 coaches (TPM item 1405), but the artwork could be adapted for the Bachmann Mk.2. As the Mk.2 gangways were in a slight recess, the easiest way to make them sprung would be to cut the recess out and glue a clear plastic plate behind so the gangway mouldings can be mounted on two small foam pads on the centre line. I was experimenting with the Triang-Hornby Mk.2 and Jouef Mk.3a coaches like this back in the 1970s, combined with recessed buffers and buckeye couplings and it was quite promising and fairly easy to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClikC Posted July 4, 2010 Author Share Posted July 4, 2010 The Mark II FKs had a rounded top to the inside of the gangway faceplate, as on Mark I stock. At a wild guess, this design was to make it easier to couple to pre-nationalisation stock with British Standard adaptor gangways. However the next Mark II hauled stock to emerge (the first of the TSOs) had a square shape to the inside of the gangway faceplate at the top but retaining the Mark I style sliding gangway end door. There is film and photographic evidence of early Mark II stock running with gangway covers, but this seems to have petered out by the late 1960s/early 1970s. See: Mark II with gangway cover. At least some of these covers were painted blue - see D&E on 35mm Vol 1 Watford Junction sequence for one. I have also seen photos of later Mark II variants running with the gangway covers, even though their new design of folding doors (introduced with Mark IIa) was intended to dispense with the covers. Thanks Robert! From the sounds of it, it may be possible to alter the Masokits gangway to reflect the post Mk2z FK build faceplate, but a replacement etch would quicker. The gangway rubbing plate was the same on most Mk.2 coaches, apart from the Mk.2 FKs which had a hybrid Mk.1/Mk.2 pattern. I have done rubbing plate etches for the Farish Mk.2 coaches (TPM item 1405), but the artwork could be adapted for the Bachmann Mk.2. As the Mk.2 gangways were in a slight recess, the easiest way to make them sprung would be to cut the recess out and glue a clear plastic plate behind so the gangway mouldings can be mounted on two small foam pads on the centre line. I was experimenting with the Triang-Hornby Mk.2 and Jouef Mk.3a coaches like this back in the 1970s, combined with recessed buffers and buckeye couplings and it was quite promising and fairly easy to do. Hi Bernard, thats some very nice 2-mm etches. The artwork would be nice if adapted for use with the Masokits gangways (which use foam for the springing i believe), which i really need to obtain a few sets of. Regards Matt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisf Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 Leaving the issue of latex aside .... All this talk of gangways has revived a thought which nags at me from time to time. Conventional wisdom has it that gangways in model form which meet the one on the next coach need the end plate to work properly. This is a shame since by no means all gangways are fitted with end plates and more often than not you can see the door on the end of the coach through the arch - as per the photo that SP Steve posted. My own interests do not extend to MK 2s but to what I believe are called British standard gangways, ie those fitted to GW and LMS coaches and to almost all first generation dmus that had corridor connections. There must be a way of springing these gangways without hiding a block of foam rubber behind the end plate but I don't know what it might be! Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClikC Posted July 4, 2010 Author Share Posted July 4, 2010 Leaving the issue of latex aside .... All this talk of gangways has revived a thought which nags at me from time to time. Conventional wisdom has it that gangways in model form which meet the one on the next coach need the end plate to work properly. This is a shame since by no means all gangways are fitted with end plates and more often than not you can see the door on the end of the coach through the arch - as per the photo that SP Steve posted. My own interests do not extend to MK 2s but to what I believe are called British standard gangways, ie those fitted to GW and LMS coaches and to almost all first generation dmus that had corridor connections. There must be a way of springing these gangways without hiding a block of foam rubber behind the end plate but I don't know what it might be! Chris The Masokits Mk1 / Pullman gangways allow you to see through to the sliding door, but the standard ones are blocked off as you describe. One of my personal gripes is that there are no extendable sprung buffers suitable for BR coaching stock, although I hope to scratch build something for my rakes. Regards Matt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 The Masokits Mk1 / Pullman gangways allow you to see through to the sliding door, but the standard ones are blocked off as you describe. One of my personal gripes is that there are no extendable sprung buffers suitable for BR coaching stock, although I hope to scratch build something for my rakes. Regards Matt The Masokits scissor gangways also work properly with correct end profile when uncoupled, it does however mean you can spend hours on the things! My mk1 connectors were built correctly without any foam involved. Do you have the MRJ article that introduced the Masokits etches and details a Bachmann mk1? The method for springing and retracting the buffers is shown in that.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisf Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 . One of my personal gripes is that there are no extendable sprung buffers suitable for BR coaching stock, although I hope to scratch build something for my rakes. Regards Matt Markits make them. I have some awaiting the distant and cosmic day when my standard suburbans (Bachmann and Replica) get the underframes they deserve. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penrhos1920 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Black latex I had no idea that was available - do you know where it can be obtained from, and if it's available in yellow, please? I think that it would be ideal for class 455 gangways. In black from Black latex or ECC blue & yellow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 There must be a way of springing these gangways without hiding a block of foam rubber behind the end plate but I don't know what it might be! This type of gangway is not sprung in real life, the two halves have to be manually pulled out and clipped together. To avoid using end plates you need to copy the clip set up. Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 View PostClikC, on 04 July 2010 - 18:24 , said:. One of my personal gripes is that there are no extendable sprung buffers suitable for BR coaching stock, although I hope to scratch build something for my rakes. Regards Matt Markits make them. I have some awaiting the distant and cosmic day when my standard suburbans (Bachmann and Replica) get the underframes they deserve. Chris Even if they do, must check!, you don't need them for Suburbans, they have standard (non-retracting) buffers. Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisf Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Even if they do, must check!, you don't need them for Suburbans, they have standard (non-retracting) buffers. Keith Keith, the ones I have are suitable for suburbans but on reflection not for corridor atock. Sorry for giving you false hope Matt. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugsley Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Black latex In black from Black latex or ECC blue & yellow. Thanks for the tip - I'll check them out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClikC Posted July 5, 2010 Author Share Posted July 5, 2010 The Masokits scissor gangways also work properly with correct end profile when uncoupled, it does however mean you can spend hours on the things! My mk1 connectors were built correctly without any foam involved. Do you have the MRJ article that introduced the Masokits etches and details a Bachmann mk1? The method for springing and retracting the buffers is shown in that.. I have to admit, I'm only just starting out collecting MRJ's. In fact, I have 6 in total. However, I have access to a complete collection, and will probably put it down on my 'pick up from ebay' list, Whats the issue no.?Also, I rang Brian Hanson today. He has found a company to make springs for his eventual plan to make fully working coil suspension for the Hornby 50 bogies. But he's going to draw up an etch first, then commission some test runs of springs of various thicknesses and material. So he doesn't have any yet, but i spoke to him about the B4 bogies, and he did hint that they were on the list too... Keith, the ones I have are suitable for suburbans but on reflection not for corridor atock. Sorry for giving you false hope Matt. Chris Don't worry Chris. At the risk of going off topic, does anyone know if they are suitable for Mk1 GUV's? If so I'll need, to use technical english "*£$k loads". In related news, some Bill Bedford 8'6" sprung bogies were ordered from Eileens today, so I can sort out the bogie/ ride height issues on my Bachy Mk2's. Regards Matt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.