Wright writes.....

[petrovich]

They are battery boxes. The D86/87 vans were built with oil lamps and converted to electric lighting. I can't recall whether the D120s had electric from new, but they certainly ended up with it.

Thank you for the reply Jonathan, I do need to do some more studying of wagons of all the groups let alone the LNER and its constituents.

 

Regards

 

Peter

[Porcy Mane]

Both D&S LNER vans are now (just about) complete. 

 

I reiterate, I've not built any better etched brass rolling stock kits (though I haven't built a kit from every manufacturer - yet!). 

 

Is there an overlay to be added to the front of the battery box replicating relief/detailing on the diag. 120 van?

 

RD15736.  LNER 6843 Passenger Brake. by Ron Fisher, on Flickr

 

I also thought the springs ran behind the W irons on most of these pigeon vans. I have seen some very similar vans with the springs in front but the tumblehome was noticeably different.  (Shuffles off to look through my photographs)

 

There is a useful pic of the W Irons here:

 

http://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=11548

 

It's a long time since I read through Mr Pinnocks instructions.

 

P

[Bernard Lamb]

Porcy's picture also shows this example to be dual braked. The Westinghouse pipe being clearly visible.

I hope Tony takes great care in selecting a suitable number as most photos that I have seen are of the dual braked variety.

Or were they all dual fitted?

Bernard

[jwealleans]

All the GE section ones were dual fitted. I don’t know about the almost identical vans built for the GC section.

[Mallard60022]

I am probably suffering brain failure but I seem to remember reading some time back, whilst searching for info. pre a kit build, that certain vans built at York and Stratford had slightly different roof designs. Was the D86 one of these? I only ask as I want to confirm if my remaining cells are functioning, or otherwise. 

Thank you.

Phil

[Enterprisingwestern]

 I only ask as I want to confirm if my remaining cells are functioning, or otherwise.

 

If they aren't Phil, welcome to the club!

 

Mike.

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony

 

The boxes hanging from the underframe, are these for batteries or something else? If batteries what did they power?

 

Regards

 

Peter

Peter,

 

As Jonathan has pointed out, they are battery boxes for internal lighting. 

 

I've even gone as far as fitting the (dummy) dynamo belt.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

 

Is there an overlay to be added to the front of the battery box replicating relief/detailing on the diag. 120 van?

 

RD15736.  LNER 6843 Passenger Brake. by Ron Fisher, on Flickr

 

I also thought the springs ran behind the W irons on most of these pigeon vans. I have seen some very similar vans with the springs in front but the tumblehome was noticeably different.  (Shuffles off to look through my photographs)

 

There is a useful pic of the W Irons here:

 

http://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=11548

 

It's a long time since I read through Mr Pinnocks instructions.

 

P

 

 

Many thanks,

 

There is some relief detail. However, it's so small in relief, that, after finishing and weathering, it probably won't be visible. 

 

I added the springs where I thought they fitted. There isn't enough space behind the 'W' irons, unless (as usual) I've cocked up. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Edited December 15, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

Many thanks for the comments regarding the two vans. 

 

 

John Houlden made the van to the right, from the same D&S kit. He hasn't fitted electric lighting equipment, so I'll probably do that retrospectively. 

 

 

Rob Davey made the Pigeon Van to the right, from the Chivers kit. He also painted it, numbered it and weathered it. Clearly, the springs are behind the 'W' irons. Since the wheels in mine run in pin-point bearings in the axleboxes (which are integral with the springs), I'm puzzled how I've got this wrong. The covers are separate. 

 

Ignorance was bliss! I can't see an easy fix, so I'll probably cop out on this one, covering the lot with heavy weathering. Since it'll run in a heavy (and, thus, long) empty stock/parcels train, I'll ask visitors to spot the deliberate mistake in the set. 

 

Is it any wonder why I don't tackle much in the way of non-passenger-carrying vehicles? 

 

 

 

This is much more up my street; started this morning. It's going to be a Gresley Tourist Buffet Car. The sides, ends, floor pan, trussing and solebars were made for a friend of a friend in 1985 by Grange & Hodder. The idea was that all the Tourist stock would be produced in etched form and sold as complete kits. In the event, nothing came of the scheme (as far as I know), and I was given these bits by my friend's friend (thanks John). They were the test etch (the only ones made) and I was told there was no guarantee of the parts fitting. That said, they did, though the trussing (etched as part of the floor pan) is very flimsy. The bottom flange of the solebar was also etched as part of the floor pan. This proved impossible to form without distortion, so I cut it off. It'll be replaced with brass strip. 

 

It should be an interesting build. It runs beautifully on MJT HD bogies. 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Mallard60022]

Many thanks for the comments regarding the two vans. 

 

DSC_5850.JPG

 

John Houlden made the van to the right, from the same D&S kit. He hasn't fitted electric lighting equipment, so I'll probably do that retrospectively. 

 

DSC_5851.JPG

 

Rob Davey made the Pigeon Van to the right, from the Chivers kit. He also painted it, numbered it and weathered it. Clearly, the springs are behind the 'W' irons. Since the wheels in mine run in pin-point bearings in the axleboxes (which are integral with the springs), I'm puzzled how I've got this wrong. The covers are separate. 

 

Ignorance was bliss! I can't see an easy fix, so I'll probably cop out on this one, covering the lot with heavy weathering. Since it'll run in a heavy (and, thus, long) empty stock/parcels train, I'll ask visitors to spot the deliberate mistake in the set. 

 

Is it any wonder why I don't tackle much in the way of non-passenger-carrying vehicles? 

 

 DSC_5853.JPG

 

This is much ore up my street; started this morning. It's going to be a Gresley Tourist Buffet Car. The sides, ends, floor pan, trussing and solebars were made for a friend of a friend in 1985 by Grange & Hodder. The idea was that all the Tourist stock would be produced in etched form and sold as complete kits. In the event, nothing came of the scheme (as far as I know), and I was given these bits by my friend's friend (thanks John). They were the test etch (the only ones made) and I was told there was no guarantee of the parts fitting. That said, they did, though the trussing (etched as part of the floor pan) is very flimsy. The bottom flange of the solebar was also etched as part of the floor pan. This proved impossible to form without distortion, so I cut it off. It'll be replaced with brass strip. 

 

It should be an interesting build. It runs beautifully on MJT HD bogies. 

I think Rob Might have got his battery in the wrong place though, unless the side doors are asymmetrical; I can't remember?

P

[gwrrob]

I think Rob Might have got his battery in the wrong place though, unless the side doors are asymmetrical; I can't remember?

P

 

I think it's right judging by this Chris Nevard version of the same model.

[Mallard60022]

I think it's right judging by this Chris Nevard version of the same model.

Oh yes, but it does seem weird having the box behind the step and I often think that is the case on other vans & coaches. Look at the actual thing in post 21117.

Phil

Edited December 15, 2017 by Mallard60022

[Tony Wright]

I think it's right judging by this Chris Nevard version of the same model.

Thanks Robin,

 

It's interesting comparing models of the same vehicle by different manufacturers. 

 

The battery boxes on the D&S kit are fold-up brass, literally, boxes. They have four tabs on each which fit into four slots in the floor pan. They cannot be fitted the 'wrong way round' because of this, though does that mean they are fitted at the wrong end?

 

Interestingly, there are no brake pipes of any kind on the model in the picture. 

 

I think where the brass one scores over the plastic one (despite my muddling up of where the springs should be) is in the separate handrails and door handles, and the thinner sections around the windows. That said, the model in the picture is beautifully-made and finished. 

 

I think it's this last point which is most important, at least to me. There's no doubt that many of the vehicles I've made have detailed anomalies, either through ignorance, indolence or both. However, what's vital (in my opinion) is that they look 'right' as part of trains. Grotty finishing and out-of-kilter construction stand out far more than detail deficiencies. 

 

I have one Thompson carriage where I know the ventilators are on the wrong side of the roof (they should be on the centre line of the compartments). I can't for the life of me remember which one of the dozens I have (which I've built) it is. I just don't notice. 

 

I'm not for one moment suggesting slap dash modelling. Quite the contrary. If there are faults in any of the models I've made which I post pictures of, then they should be pointed out and, if possible, rectified. What's more important, though, is that I've made them, warts and all. I've even had one or two 'professionally-built' vehicles through my hands which are incorrect in detail, even though they look lovely. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Barry Ten]

Here's the SE Finecast 61XX undergoing running trials on my layout:

 

 

Although there are still a few small details to be added, I'd already give this kit a very high rating based on my experience so far. Other than

the quibble with the crosshead design, I encountered no great difficulties, with everything fitting very nicely, including the body-chassis 

relationship. I had to file a little bit of white metal away for clearance for the front wheels, and nibble a bit out of the fronts of the cylinders

to allow for bogie swing, but that was all easily attended to. I'll confess that some of the smaller fittings are glued in place rather than

soldered, as I'm a little wary around very small white metal castings.

 

Echoing something Tony has been saying, one of the immediate benefits of this type of construction is the weight and haulage

power of the engine. The five coach rake of GWR stock might not look much of a test, but there's some stiffness in the bogies

and it's a bit of a struggle for some of my engines, whereas the 61XX just walked away with it.

 

In typical fashion, today has seen the announcement of a new RTR model of this class in 00, but (with luck) this one will be painted

and in service long before the Dapol model comes out.

 

Alastair

[Lecorbusier]

Here's the SE Finecast 61XX undergoing running trials on my layout:

 

prarie2.jpg

 

Although there are still a few small details to be added, I'd already give this kit a very high rating based on my experience so far. Other than

the quibble with the crosshead design, I encountered no great difficulties, with everything fitting very nicely, including the body-chassis 

relationship. I had to file a little bit of white metal away for clearance for the front wheels, and nibble a bit out of the fronts of the cylinders

to allow for bogie swing, but that was all easily attended to. I'll confess that some of the smaller fittings are glued in place rather than

soldered, as I'm a little wary around very small white metal castings.

 

Echoing something Tony has been saying, one of the immediate benefits of this type of construction is the weight and haulage

power of the engine. The five coach rake of GWR stock might not look much of a test, but there's some stiffness in the bogies

and it's a bit of a struggle for some of my engines, whereas the 61XX just walked away with it.

 

In typical fashion, today has seen the announcement of a new RTR model of this class in 00, but (with luck) this one will be painted

and in service long before the Dapol model comes out.

 

Alastair

That layout looks great from the picture Alastair  ... do you have a thread on it?

[Re6/6]

That layout looks great from the picture Alastair  ... do you have a thread on it?

Here's Al's blog: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/257/entry-20106-recent-projects-on-the-summer-module/ Plenty of lovely stuff there.

[Re6/6]

Last two:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Re6/6]

Thought that these might be interesting.. 

 

 

 

[Tony Teague]

It's interesting comparing models of the same vehicle by different manufacturers. 

 

The battery boxes on the D&S kit are fold-up brass, literally, boxes. They have four tabs on each which fit into four slots in the floor pan. They cannot be fitted the 'wrong way round' because of this, though does that mean they are fitted at the wrong end?

As I am not an LNER aficianado, I am pretty sure that I followed the Chivers instructions as to where things should go, and my steps are at the opposite ends to the battery boxes:

 

- so who knows what is right!

 

Tony

 

[pls excuse poor pic!]

Edited December 16, 2017 by Tony Teague

[Dunsignalling]

I think Rob Might have got his battery in the wrong place though, unless the side doors are asymmetrical; I can't remember?

P

Judging from photos studied when I was building one of the Chivers kits a while back, it seems the position of the battery boxes varied.

 

Some were mounted as a pair at the same end (which is what I've done) and others to the left looking from either side. This may mean that there were variations in brake gear too.

 

They didn't all have full length footboards like the Chivers version either; some just had short ones under the doors.

 

John

Edited December 16, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[davefrk]

And some didn't have the long horizontal handrails on the body side either, that's the one I'm doing. (Chivers).

Maybe the 'moving' battery boxes were because some of these vehicles were built on secondhand frames and they varied in length slightly too.

 

Dave Franks.

[glo41f]

The pictures of the V2 are most interesting and thank you for sharing them. They show what a thoroughbred the loco is. What is really intriguing is the pile of ash in front of the smokebox which nobody has seen fit to sweep off. You can just imagine the effect that the ash which drops into the 2:1 gear underneath will have acting like grinding paste! No wonder they went off beat failrly often. Perhaps if Sir Nigel has put the valve gear behind the cylinders as on the B17s, this Achilles heel of the design would have been eliminated.

 

Martin Long

[Compound2632]

Thought that these might be interesting.. 

 

Do you have a date or any other details for these photos of this decrepit old Great Northern bogie lavatory brake composite?

[Tony Wright]

Last two:

 

img121a.jpg

 

img162.jpg

John,

 

Many thanks for these. 

 

The picture of 60854 is particularly interesting because it shows the very low position of the cabside numbers on this particular loco (uniquely?). I've commented on this in my recent book from Booklaw. 

 

Other points to note are the incorrect style of '6' on the smokebox door numberplate, the lowered 'plate (on to the top hingestrap) and the divided cross rail. Only a few V2s got the last two modifications, brought about by overhead electrification and the lowering of the top lamp bracket for safety reasons (the same reasons which saw ex-LMS and BR Standard types having their top bracket positioned at 3 o'clock on the smokebox door). 

 

Oh, those joys of 'loco-picking'. 

[Tony Wright]

And some didn't have the long horizontal handrails on the body side either, that's the one I'm doing. (Chivers).

Maybe the 'moving' battery boxes were because some of these vehicles were built on secondhand frames and they varied in length slightly too.

 

Dave Franks.

Thanks Dave,

 

Did any have the springs outside the 'W'-irons, though? Like mine. 

 

I've investigated rearranging them, but they're all soldered securely in place. Is this one disadvantage of soldering - the joint is too permanent?