Thompson Vestibuled Main Line Stock (retooled)

[Pint of Adnams]

I can't agree with this, the Thompson stock where all line carriages with allocations to most if not all areas of the LNER. Yes, the East coast mainline got the first batches and cascading did occur but allocations to other areas where made directly off the production line. The PV stock was a little late in arriving, the Flying Scotsman being initially equipped with the standard types until the PV stock became available. With regard to liveries, before the introduction of the standard livery as mentioned by Larry, quite a few Thompsons received the Chocolate and cream and plum and spilt milk liveries. Some of these survived quite late, a number avoided the crimson and cream livery completely, going directly into maroon after its introduction.

 

Edited note

 

It may be of interest to modelers out there, that Southern Pride produces a number of the latter diagrams, such as the pantry cars, with the correct pattern rounded windows.

And obviously I can't agree with all that you say when set in the context of square-cornered window non-PV stock, which is what this thread and my observations concern, being directed at those diagrams as modelled by Bachmann.

 

As a generalisation and if including the later rounded-cornered window non-PV stock then they are so, but more appropriate to a prototype thread to avoid misleading others seeking information about the allocations of the Bachmann examples.

 

There are a number of us who would be interested to see specific information (viz. diagrams + running numbers + dates) of the those ex-LNER type carriages that remained in experimental liveries, particularly since photographs of these are very few and far between. The basic types are generally listed in contemporaneous carriage workings.

[Headstock]

And obviously I can't agree with all that you say when set in the context of square-cornered window non-PV stock, which is what this thread and my observations concern, being directed at those diagrams as modelled by Bachmann.

 

As a generalisation and if including the later rounded-cornered window non-PV stock then they are so, but more appropriate to a prototype thread to avoid misleading others seeking information about the allocations of the Bachmann examples.

 

There are a number of us who would be interested to see specific information (viz. diagrams + running numbers + dates) of the those ex-LNER type carriages that remained in experimental liveries, particularly since photographs of these are very few and far between. The basic types are generally listed in contemporaneous carriage workings.

 

Your post is not very clear, what are you disagreeing with?

[26power]

Possibly square windows in a maroon liveried coach at about 2 mins 12 secs here?:

 

Snow (1963) - Geoffrey Jones | BFI National Archive

[coachmann]

Some Thompson corridor coaches were built with square corner windows and some were built with rounded corner windows. Regardless of their window configuration, all acquired BR maroon after 1956 except for those that had been written off. It was no big deal, although for some reasons there appears to have arisen some confusion between reality and wish-list frothing.

Edited May 3, 2017 by coachmann

[sparaxis]

I just got my four of these. Absolutely beautiful but why don't they have NEM pockets that comply with the standard? It isn't rocket science. I can plug a standard Roco or Fleischmann or Marklin coupling into most Hornby coaches, but Bachmann needs some sort of "longer" coupling like the Roco height adjustable one in order to couple. Or perhaps a mix of a standard Roco coupling and the longer Hornby version.

 

At least unlike the Mk1s, the mounts are the right height.

[andyman7]

I just got my four of these. Absolutely beautiful but why don't they have NEM pockets that comply with the standard? It isn't rocket science. I can plug a standard Roco or Fleischmann or Marklin coupling into most Hornby coaches, but Bachmann needs some sort of "longer" coupling like the Roco height adjustable one in order to couple. Or perhaps a mix of a standard Roco coupling and the longer Hornby version.

 

At least unlike the Mk1s, the mounts are the right height.

I think your suggestion of using the 'Hornby' Roco-style coupling should do the trick as it isn't cranked but is longer than the actual Roco NEM362 coupling.

Edited August 4, 2017 by andyman7

[Dominion]

I am using a mixed Roco to Hornby Roco-style pair. That is working well on 30 inch radius.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... why don't they have NEM pockets that comply with the standard? It isn't rocket science. I can plug a standard Roco or Fleischmann or Marklin coupling into most Hornby coaches, but Bachmann needs some sort of "longer" coupling like the Roco height adjustable one in order to couple. Or perhaps a mix of a standard Roco coupling and the longer Hornby version.

 

At least unlike the Mk1s, the mounts are the right height.

 

I don't understand what is non-compliant. I only have a couple so far (it's the maroon liveried versions that will best suit me) but they take the Roco coupler the part number of which I have long forgotten (the pattern that Hornby cloned as R8220) and work perfectly. The faces of the coupler pockets are in the range 7 - 7.5 mm behind the gangway faceplate which is in specification.

 

 

Pocket height is good as observed above, and alignment too, with no droop; as the Brake end which goes on the end of one of my fixed formations took a no 18 Kadee at gauge height with no adjustment required.

[Dunsignalling]

I don't understand what is non-compliant. I only have a couple so far (it's the maroon liveried versions that will best suit me) but they take the Roco coupler the part number of which I have long forgotten (the pattern that Hornby cloned as R8220) and work perfectly. The faces of the coupler pockets are in the range 7 - 7.5 mm behind the gangway faceplate which is in specification.

 

 

Pocket height is good as observed above, and alignment too, with no droop; as the Brake end which goes on the end of one of my fixed formations took a no 18 Kadee at gauge height with no adjustment required.

The Roco 40270 (40271 is just the bulk pack) coupler heads are fully compliant with the appropriate NEM specification, the Hornby ones are about 2mm longer, but compliant in all other respects. The longer height-adjustable Roco heads (40287) match the length of the Hornby ones. The shorter version (40286) presumably matches the 40270, though I don't have any currently to hand.

 

That's why a pair of Hornby heads fitted into the non-compliant Bachmann Mk1 linkages will couple, whereas a pair of standard Rocos won't reach one another.

 

I haven't yet got round to prepping my two new Thompsons but, when I do, if I were to fit Rocos and the coaches [a] couple up when pushed together and the gangways touch, that would prove the linkages to be fully compliant.

 

Conversely, if I were to fit a pair of the Hornby heads, and both conditions were met, it would indicate that the extra length of the Hornby heads was compensating for under-length linkages (i.e. two wrongs can, in this case, make a right ).

 

If the linkages are fully compliant, fitting the Hornby heads will leave a gap, which is not what the standard is designed to achieve, even though they will function perfectly well.  

 

Thus "sufficiently compliant to work perfectly" and "fully compliant" are not necessarily the same thing.

 

John

Edited August 27, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...I haven't yet got round to prepping my two new Thompsons but, when I do, if I were to fit Rocos and the coaches [a] couple up when pushed together and the gangways touch, that would prove the linkages to be fully compliant...

The Roco 40270 (thanks for the reminder) works exactly as you describe in the two examples of the new Thompsons that I have. There is a caveat. The recentering action of the mechanism is not the most positive when the vehicles are running uncoupled, so it is advisable to make sure they are centred before coupling. Doesn't bother me as these couplers are only used inside 'permanent' formations, but might not suit someone wanting to use them as autocouplers.

[GNR Dave]

Some of the teak liveried carriages are now in stock at Rails

[Dunsignalling]

The Roco 40270 (thanks for the reminder) works exactly as you describe in the two examples of the new Thompsons that I have. There is a caveat. The recentering action of the mechanism is not the most positive when the vehicles are running uncoupled, so it is advisable to make sure they are centred before coupling. Doesn't bother me as these couplers are only used inside 'permanent' formations, but might not suit someone wanting to use them as autocouplers.

I follow the same routine with regard to Roco couplers; outer ends get Kadees to match my locos.

 

The self-centering action of most CCUs can be improved by the application of a soft (at least 4B) pencil to the portions of the floor they slide against.

 

John

Edited March 16, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Market65]

Here are two photos of the TK which I purchased at Monk Bar Models, York, today. I’ve got it coupled to a Hornby Gresley non corridor CL in teak. I’ll let you make your own minds up about the Thompson’s mock teak.

 

 

Regards,

 

Rob.

[JaymzHatstand]

From a distance, they look nicely subtle. I've not inspected one close up, so can't comment on that. From the photos you can make out that the artificial grain goes in the right direction in the right places and gives a reasonable representation of the multi shaded appearance of the prototype, though perhaps a little more colour variation would be nice but hard to do without it looking like a repeating pattern on mass produced models.

 

Definitely a nice looking model, though not one I have a need for in this livery. Like many, the maroon ones will be my downfall! I've got a blood & custard one, and it's lovely.

 

Cheers

 

J

[KymN]

I just got my four of these. Absolutely beautiful but why don't they have NEM pockets that comply with the standard? It isn't rocket science. I can plug a standard Roco or Fleischmann or Marklin coupling into most Hornby coaches, but Bachmann needs some sort of "longer" coupling like the Roco height adjustable one in order to couple. Or perhaps a mix of a standard Roco coupling and the longer Hornby version.

 

At least unlike the Mk1s, the mounts are the right height.

Yet  Bachmann Birdcages couple cleanly with Roco couplers.  Where I have had trouble (and used one Hornby, one Roco) has been with Hornby coaches

[Chamby]

I note that only the First and Third Thompson teak coaches arrived in the model shops last week - unusual because the full range would normally appear together. Does anyone know when the composite and two brake coaches are due in?

 

My half-rake of these beautiful coaches is impatiently waiting to be completed!

[Market65]

When I bought my TK from Monk Bar Models, York, last week, all they could say, when asked that very question, was that the rest of them are due in soon. But they had no idea exactly when.

 

Rob.

[GNR Dave]

The Comp and one of the Brakes are imminent according to an email from Rails.

[AGR Model Store]

Has anyone opened up one of the new Thompson's yet ? ( Project to fit figures in one of mine )

[davidw]

Has anyone opened up one of the new Thompson's yet ? ( Project to fit figures in one of mine )

Yes there are 6 clips holding body in place. They are fragile (the clips).

[Guest spet0114]

Last club running night afforded an opportunity to run a couple of the new Thompsons with their Triang-Hornby ancestors (and suitable motive power). The ensemble didn't look too bad at all....

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPUpUeASCGc&feature=youtu.be

[Rshakes3]

Hi all, does anyone know when the last Brake will be released?

Edited April 22, 2018 by Rshakes3

[Guest spet0114]

Quick question (which I don't think has been answered in the previous 14 pages) - why does the Brake Third (34-460) have an 'E' in front of it's number while none of the other LNER livery ones do?

[Steamport Southport]

Quick question (which I don't think has been answered in the previous 14 pages) - why does the Brake Third (34-460) have an 'E' in front of it's number while none of the other LNER livery ones do?

 

Eastern Region. They weren't built until 1948 so it has the BR  E prefix.

 

 

I never noticed that they had released one in that condition. That's one for the list.

 

 

 

Jason

[Guest spet0114]

Eastern Region. They weren't built until 1948 so it has the BR  E prefix.

 

 

I never noticed that they had released one in that condition. That's one for the list.

 

 

 

Jason

Makes sense - thanks.