Chuffer Davies

I’ve never bothered disabling DC on my models, mainly because DCC has been fitted so that we can exploit the excellent control that it provides when shunting in the station yard. Running on the mainline under DC is perfectly adequate. I would be interested to hear your reasoning behind disabling DC and the benefit this provides you? I can also hear Tony’s voice in my head telling us that his models run perfectly under DC control and he can’t see any reason for going DCC. Tony we will have to agree to disagree because having extensive experience of operating the same models on Hungerford before and after converting to DCC, I can say with complete confidence that shunting under DCC is superior for two reasons: Firstly enabling a degree of inertia avoids the less skilled operator from starting and stopping the shunting movement too aggressively, a common fault I have observed on exhibition layouts. Secondly the 15volt constant current reduces the tendency of locos sticking as the track and wheels become increasingly contaminated from the atmosphere in the exhibition hall as the operating day progresses. People following Grantham (a DC layout) this last weekend at Harrogate will have read the problems they had because of live steam models operating in the same exhibition hall. It was our experience of the exact same issue one time at Ally Pally that was the trigger to our investigating DCC originally.

Hi Mike, thanks for the pictures. I wish we knew what the cause of the warping was. I can’t immediately think what about the printing process could result in this given that the top and bottom of the sleeper are printed identically. The top of the sleeper has apparently shrunk introducing the force that has curved the sleeper but why? Has it been subject to strong sun light perhaps? You will certainly need some strong adhesive to glue it flat and keep it so. I have a test track with three EM points. These are glued down on a plywood base using UHU glue and after a couple of years there has been no movement. They were installed almost as soon as I received them so they did not have time to warp. Please let us know (either way) how you get on. Frank

Hi Mike, any chance you could take a picture to illustrate the problem? When you say bent, do you actually mean bent or has it warped/curved? Do you have any idea what caused this deformation in the first place? Frank

Well said. I couldn’t agree more.

Hurray! I've at last managed to get the ROD's chassis back to the top of the pile. As far as possible I try to work on the 'one project at a time' principle but at the end of 2022 I uncharacteristically had 3 projects at different stages. There was the re-built John Edgson J50 away with Ian Rathbone for painting, the test build of the J52 kit for Paul Craig was stuck awaiting delivery of the remaining castings, and so to use the time productively I had started work on assembling the ROD chassis, having prepared the CAD artwork and had it etched much earlier in 2022. In January the J52 castings arrived and work on the ROD was interrupted in order to complete and sign-off (so to speak) the test build for Paul Craig. I also wanted the J52 finished so that it could be sent off for painting. Just as I was about to contact Mr Rathbone regarding the J52, Ian pipped me to the post and emailed me to say the J50 is ready. The two locos passed in the post and the ROD was again pushed back so that I could carry out final assembly of the J50. Its been a couple of weeks now since I picked up the ROD once more and I have now successfully test fitted the driving wheels and coupling rods and have built the pony truck. Unfortunately I've had to build the pony truck twice. The first time, when I test fitted the wheels, I discovered that the pony truck was too wide by approximately 1mm. I therefore had to replace the frame spacers before adding the spring detail. The prototype truck has both leaf and coil springs and not having the ability to make castings I have had to attempt to recreate the detail using a combination of etched parts and other bits and pieces. I think the end result is a reasonable representation of the real thing, but once the wheels are added the detail is all but obscured. Some may feel it wasn't worth the effort but I would suggest that adding such detail is very much in keeping with the Pendon ethos. Next update will be when I've built and fitted the cylinders and slidebars. Bye for now, Frank

You may struggle to get enough sideplay on the rear driven axle. My approach when building 4-4-0 or 4-4-2 chassis is to effectively build the 4-4 element of the chassis as a 2-6-0 by preventing sideplay in the rear bogie axle and the rear driven axle. The front driven axle is given a small amount of sideplay and the front of the bogie acts as a pony truck pivoted around the pin locking the rear of the bogie. A benefit of this is that there is no need to cut clearance holes in the frames for the passage of the rear bogie wheels much as would be the case on the prototype.

Hi Tony, Increasing the voltage supplied to a controller is fine as long as you don't then exceed the maximum voltage that a given motor can handle, which will occur when you wind the controller up to maximum. Amperage by contrast doesn't work the same way. The motor will attempt to draw as much current as it needs for a given train load and track voltage. If the controller is not rated high enough (i.e. it can't supply enough amps) then the motor will be unable to draw the current it wants and will under perform, which is why using 'O' gauge controllers will almost certainly eliminate that particular constraint on the motor. We use Gaugemaster 'O' gauge controllers on Hungerford for the same reason as you have stated for Little Bytham with the same result. Frank

Hi Jesse, as a matter of curiosity can I ask what DCC control system you are using? Whilst I have not noticed this issue myself, in theory at least the top speed of a DCC loco will be constrained by 1 of 2 elements, the max voltage setting of the chip and the maximum voltage of the power supply, which ever is the lower. Some systems allow the power supply voltage to be varied up to about 17volts I believe, but others do not. I’m using Lenz on Hungerford and a Digikeijs on Clayton both of which allow the track supply voltage to be set higher than 12 volts. It should also be realised that the decoder uses a bridge rectifier which typically drops the incoming voltage by 1.4 volts. The Vmax setting on the chip is an absolute voltage ( or at least it is on the Zimo chips I use). Therefore if you set Vmax to e.g. 140 (14 volts) and the supply voltage is e.g. 16 volts then there should be no loss of top speed over a DC motor being supplied with the typical 12volt max. This is my personal interpretation of what is happening on a DCC system unless anyone else on here knows better and can correct me?

Most readers will already have seen a picture of my new J50 on Wright Writes. This model was scratch built in OO gauge by John Edgson and I assume it must have been a commissioned model as it was owned by a third party until their collection was sold on behalf of their estate by Tony Wright. When I acquired the model my first task was to identify a suitable prototype shedded in the West Yorkshire area in 1930. I settled on 586 which was a Bradford loco. As far as I could determine the safety valve on 586 in 1930 was not pedestal mounted but the water filler caps were, the reverse of John’s model. I decided to correct these details but there was a third discrepancy that I chickened out of. This was the vacuum ejector pipe exiting on the offside of the smokebox on John’s model but on the actual prototype it should be on the nearside. On John’s model the pipe runs under the flashing covering the gap between the boiler cladding and the top of the side tank. To remove it from the offside and to reposition it on the nearside would have caused too much damage. Most people viewing the layout will be unaware of this discrepancy and I’m prepared to live with it. I also decided to replace the scratch built opening smokebox door so characteristic of John’s models. On this particular model I felt the door was rather too bulbous. The new cast door looks much better in my opinion. The only other modification to the loco’s body was to pack it with as much lead as possible. This is because the loco needs to be able to haul prototype trains up the 1:50 gradient on our layout. I model in EM and so the model needed converting. The rigid OO chassis would have needed a lot of work to bring it up to standard and at the same time I was aware that Chris Gibbon at High Level had, for several years, been working on a J50 chassis kit for the Hornby model. I decided to wait until this was available. As soon as his kit was launched (in early 2022) one was purchased and within a couple of months I had a replacement chassis built reusing the Sharman wheels from John’s chassis. I would normally build tank engines with a split frame chassis, but Chris’s design with removable spring hangers to permit the axles to be dropped, was sufficiently complex to make conversion to split frame difficult. I therefore decided to build the chassis as per Chris’s original design installing my preferred ‘back scratcher’ pickups behind the offside wheel rims, shorting the rims of the nearside wheels to their axles making the chassis live. The main features of the chassis are CSB suspension, and a HL 1320 coreless motor driving through an integrated 47:1 High Level gearbox. The model is wired for DCC using a Zimo MX617 decoder. These are currently like the proverbial rocking horse to purchase and I only have one left in the spares box so I hope the decoder shortage ends soon. The model has now been painted by Ian Rathbone and I have carried out final assembly. It is always a relief when the chassis is assembled with successfully quartered wheels Loctited to their axles, and lubricated bearings. I can then establish for the first time how well the chassis really performs. On Thursday I took the model to club and ran it on the layout with a test train behind it. It was loaded with 25 wagons but I am confident it is capable of hauling a lot more. As you can hear on the following video the model has a slight ‘growl’ in the forward direction but it is silent in reverse. I'm sure that under exhibition conditions it will be inaudible. The model performed faultlessly and so it will now be added to the locomotive fleet for Clayton (EM).

With a traditional drive system where the worm gear is mounted directly on the motor’s shaft then in the main the issue is caused by the thrust imposed on the motor’s bearings. In one direction the forces will push the armature up against the rear bearing and in the other direction the front bearing. The bearings at each end will typically be of different construction (blind at the rear and through at the front) and will therefore behave differently under force and this results in the different behaviour of the drive system. In a Portescap with bevel gears the forces are the same in both directions and differences in directional performance (if any) cannot be explained in the same way.

Back in July 21 Tony was selling some models on behalf of the estate of a recently deceased modeller. One of the models was an unpainted OO gauge J50 in nickel silver believed to have been scratch built by John Edgson of Isinglass fame. I was lucky enough to acquire it as a prospective loco for our Clayton project. The superstructure only needed some minor modifications in order to accurately represent a particular prototype sheded at Bradford in 1930. I also decided to replace the slightly bulbous scratch built (opening) smokebox door with a better looking casting. The OO chassis was not suitable for conversion and so the Sharman wheels were rescued and a High Level kit chassis purchased as a replacement. The model is at last completed and has recently been returned by Ian Rathbone who kindly painted it for me. It is now complete bar final detailing, and lamps will be added once we know how the loco is to be rostered on Clayton. I’m delighted with how the model has turned out and hope that John Edgson would approve of the modifications I have made. For those who enjoy knowing the technical bits: The model has CSB suspension. The chassis is live to the nearside with back scratcher pickups to the wheels on the offside. It has Sharman wheels with a High Level 1320 coreless motor driving the centre axle through a HL 47:1 gearbox. It is fitted with a Zimo MX617 decoder.

I have already posted a picture of my latest model on Wright Writes, but felt readers might be interested in some additional pictures and information about this new model. A year or so ago I posted a picture of a J52 that I had built from a set of my own etches. At the time I thought I’d done a good job but it subsequently transpired that I’d made some errors in my design, specifically I’d given it an Ivatt cab instead of a Stirling, there was some detail missing from the cab roof, and the footplate was 2mm too wide. I discovered these errors during a conversation with Paul Craig. Paul has spent many years researching GN locomotives and is responsible for the design of several of the GN/LNER kits available from London Road Models. It transpired that Paul was in the process of designing a J52/53 kit for LRM. He convinced me that I needed a second J52 for Clayton, and I might like to test build his model rather than correct my original etches. Whilst I discovered a few errors in Paul’s test etches there were no showstoppers. Any mistakes discovered were reported back to Paul, along with occasional suggestions as to how the design might be simplified/improved. In particular I have recommended that the superstructure should be made up from three distinct sub-assemblies these being the footplate, the cab/bunker, and the smokebox, boiler, firebox assembly. The reason for this being that it makes the model easier to break down for painting and lining, and it also gives easy access to the inside of the cab for adding glazing and engine crew. A key feature of the new kit will be a 3D printed saddle. Initially I intended to build this model with the printed saddle and got as far as installing the hand rails. Unfortunately it subsequently transpired that the saddle supplied was dimensionally incorrect, and in the interests of maintaining momentum I replaced it with an etched saddle from my own J52. I have since received a replacement 3D printed saddle and have been able to test fit it to confirm that it is dimensionally correct. In addition to the saddle the kit will also feature a completely new bespoke set of castings including those needed to represent the condensing gear. In my opinion these new castings are as good if not better than any castings I have ever seen before. Whilst the prototype is a humble tank engine, as a model it is possibly the most complex locomotive I have ever attempted to build because of all the pipework and levers adorning the outside of it. Construction of my model is at last complete and I have now dismantled it for cleaning prior to sending it off for painting. Some more pictures:

Rather than fill up WW with the ins and outs of Ultrasonic cleaning I have documented my approach on my Chuffer's Workbench topic and for anyone who is interested please use the following link to jump to the item. Frank

I have been asked to describe the process for ultrasonically cleaning models prior to painting. Ultrasonic baths are widely used commercially for cleaning jewellery, clock mechanisms, glasses and any number of other things. These are now increasingly used domestically. I purchased my ultrasonic bath from RS Components but I'm sure there are many other retailers from whom they can be purchased. The first stage in the process is to strip the model down as far as possible and give it a clean with traditional cleaning methods. In my case I use a baby's soft toothbrush and SIF cream cleaner. I fill the bath with 10/1 mix of warm water and specialist cleaning fluid, approx 1.1 litres is required to ensure that the various parts of the model are fully immersed. Marigold (or equivalent) gloves are essential as the cleaning fluid must not come into contact with skin. The bath comes with a plastic tray but apparently the tray reduces the power of the bath and so I choose to place the model in the bath without the tray. Everything goes into the bath including the wheels (Gibson in this case) but not the motor or gearbox. In operation the model will vibrate around the bottom of the bath. This is probably a good thing because anything that is not properly attached will be shaken loose and drop to the bottom of the bath. I clean the model for two x 8 minute cycles. As can be seen from the following picture It is surprising how much muck comes off in the bath despite having cleaned it with SIF before hand. On completion, and again wearing rubber gloves, I thoroughly rinse the cleaning fluid off the model with water and then after touch drying with kitchen towel I first dry the model as far as possible with a hairdryer before placing it in the airing cupboard for a minimum of 24hours to ensure that any water that might be trapped inside the boiler etc, is completely eliminated. This is especially critical for any steel parts such as the tyres of the wheels and the axles to avoid them rusting. The model is then ready for painting, or in my case, for sending off to be professionally painted.

A year or so ago you may remember that I posted a picture of a J52 that I had built from a set of my own etches. At the time I thought I’d done a good job but it subsequently came to light that I’d made some errors in my design, specifically I’d given it an Ivatt cab whereas it should have been a Stirling, there was some detail missing from the cab roof, and the footplate was 2mm too wide. I discovered these errors during a conversation with Paul Craig. Paul has spent many years researching GN locomotives and is responsible for the design of several of the GN/LNER kits available from London Road Models. It transpired that Paul was in the process of designing a J52/53 kit for LRM. He convinced me that I needed a second J52 for Clayton, and I might like to test build his model rather than correct my original etches. So in May last year a set of etches arrived along with some draft assembly instructions and the construction began. Whilst I discovered a few errors in the prototype etches there were no showstoppers and progress was steady. Any mistakes discovered were reported back to Paul, along with occasional suggestions as to how the design might be simplified/improved. Changes have since been made to the CAD design as necessary. Although it is not apparent from the picture, a key feature of the new kit will be a 3D printed saddle. Initially I intended to build this model with the printed saddle, but it transpired that the one supplied at the time was dimensionally incorrect. In the interests of maintaining momentum I replaced it with an etched saddle from my own J52. The model is at last complete, the delay being only due to the need to await delivery of castings, all of which are new for this model. These include the castings required to represent the condensing gear. As far as this model is concerned I will break it down into its sub-assemblies before final cleaning in an ultra-sound bath in readiness for painting. I don’t as yet have any information as to when it is likely that this kit will be available from LRM. We will need to check that the corrections have been made successfully, but once ready I am sure it will prove popular. Frank

Sorry, I try to keep my IT background in check but it still occasionally slips out. Old dogs as they say.

Hi Brian, there are a number of Retford videos on YouTube. I used ‘Retford Model Railway’ as my search argument to find them. Enjoy, Frank

After my success with the design and build of a M-I-T (Motor-In-Tender) replacement chassis for Dapol's new Great Western Mogul, I was contacted by Pendon Museum with a request to build a replacement chassis for one of their locomotives originally built by Guy Williams. The model in question is a 2-8-0 ROD. Guy intended that this would be the backup for his famous 28xx locomotive built to haul the long mineral train (90+ wagons) on the Vale scene. The model first featured in a Model Railway Journal article - edition 96. Guy built the model for the article and as such it was in the original Robinson's design. From the outset the model was built with the motor installed in the tender driving the loco's wheels through a drive shaft running below the fall plate. Some time later Guy decided to recreate history in model form and rebuild the model in its 'Swindonised' guise so that it could run at Pendon. At the time Guy suggested that the chassis should be good for about 30 years which appears to be a reasonably accurate prediction. I have been asked to provide a total replacement set of frames for the model. My first task was to prepare the CAD artwork for the frames so that they could be etched in Nickel Silver. As usual my start point was to import several work's drawings of the ROD into the CAD desktop and to then scale them to 4mm/ft in CAD so that the components could be drawn over the original engineering drawings. Once complete the artwork was sent to PPD Ltd so that they could create the photoetch tool prior to etching the metal for me. At the heart of the M-I-T solution is a simple 'U' shaped fold-up cradle in which all the drive components are mounted. The cradle is designed to be installed as a unit by soldering it between the tender's frames. Once soldered in place the cradle's bottom stretcher is removed. The drive system is designed specifically around High Level's 13/20 coreless motor and a pair of High Level spur gears. The drive shaft to the locomotive is supported in a pair of ball races. The thin slots either side of the mount are clearance holes for CSB wires where fitted. I have just completed the build of the tender's chassis, including the test installation of the M-I-T drive system. The M-I-T components cannot be permanently installed until after the frames have been painted so as to avoid paint contamination of the ball races and gears. The steel ball on the end of the drive shaft is part of a ball and socket universal joint available from Markits. When fitted to Guy's tender it is apparent that the drive shaft in my solution is mounted significantly lower than that of Guy's. His solution can be seen in his MRJ article. Having completed the build of the M-I-T tender I have now started work on the loco's frames. Early days as yet but so far so good. I will provide further updates as the build of the loco's frames progresses. Thanks for visiting. Frank

For me the term finescale made much more sense in the 1960s when the dominant standards were those of Triang (Rovex) and Hornby Dublo. Anything built to a more accurate standard could then reasonably be called finescale and there was plenty of scope for improvement. As the quality of proprietary models has improved the accuracy gap between finescale modelling and off the shelf models has narrowed and, as has been said many times, we can now buy models as accurate (or more so) than we can build ourselves. I welcome this because I have no concerns with using proprietary models as a short cut to reproducing a specific prototype in EM. The one standard that to me is critical for any model railway (as Tony W has previously hinted at) is the track standard. This lesson was brought home to me when (soon after joining the club) I was asked to try and sort out some problematic track on the club’s Leicester South layout. In time it became obvious to me that the problem was not with the hand built track so much as with the many and varied wheel standards adopted by the members building stock for the layout. It proved impossible to adjust check rail and crossing clearances so all stock ran through smoothly. In hindsight the track standard should have been agreed up front and then all stock should have been built to be compatible with that standard. It would have saved considerable time and anguish on the part of the members responsible for building the track work in the first place. Frank

The news of Eileen’s Emporium going into Receivership has been a real shock both to the owners of the business and to the customers such as I who have regularly ordered drills and materials from them. I met Eileen and Jim Pitchforth soon after they started trading only to discover that I was working in the same IT department as their son Haydn, and continued to do so for the rest of my working life. Having been retired for over 6 years I have lost touch with them but hope they are well and wish them all the best. Having never looked elsewhere for brass and nickel silver wire and section, the question I need to ask is where is the best place from which to source such materials in the future? Can anyone help with suggestions please? Frank

I couldn’t agree more other than it’s Sherry in my case. Frank

I regret that you are likely to be frustrated by any/all locomotive kits in that case because in my experience (and not unreasonably in my opinion) all kits have their compromises. As children we grew up building Kitmaster or Airfix kits which were the only kits that were 'complete' by your definition in that the only additional things needed to complete them were paints and a few basic tools. The results were generic representations of a class of locomotive, lacking the fine details that uniquely differentiated one loco of a class from another. Their simplicity was what made it possible to provide a complete kit and there was no need for the manufacturer to provide chapter and verse on detailed differences within a class of locomotive. Such models were/are crude but can be used as the basis of working models perhaps, requiring the same skills and additional components to achieve a working model as those needed to convert (and super detail) a ready to run model in EM or P4. I am of an age that I cut my metal kit building teeth on K's and Wills white metal kits. In theory such white metal kits were only slightly harder to build than plastic kits given that the number of separate components were not dissimilar in the two materials. The reality was that the quality of the castings was such that it was hard to achieve a reasonable fit and an ability to use car filler was as important as the ability to solder. The first white metal kit I successfully built was a DJH 1366 pannier tank partly because I had by then developed my skills sufficiently, and partly because the quality of the kit was so much better than what had gone before. Even so, unless the builder is willing to research the prototype and identify the detailed additions (the so called 'wiggly bits' etc.) required to build a representation of a specific locomotive, the end result will still be a generic model of a class of locomotive. If you want to build a model of a specific prototype you must expect to do the research yourself. It goes without saying that all metal kits (other than K's) require motor, gears, wheels and couplings to complete. Most kits will recommend a motor/gearbox combination but the builder has a free choice as to whether they follow that advice or not. We have all read the many, sometimes contentious, debates surrounding choice of motors and gears, and most of us clearly have our own preferences. Wheels are particularly problematic. The kit will likely advise the wheel size/s, number of spokes, etc. but will be unlikely to recommend manufacture (the 'other makes are also available' syndrome). it should be clear to all regular readers of WW that none of the options are perfect, the modeller needs to have done their research to decide which compromises they are willing to either accept or be prepared to mitigate against. The choices and compromises become more difficult the harder the model needs to work. If your model is only going to chug up and down a shunting plank then plastic centred (friction fit) drivers will be absolutely fine. If you are building models for Retford, Carlisle, Little Bytham, Pendon, etc. then plastic centred wheels are still okay but will need additional attention to mitigate against slipping on the axle, but their basic design ensures this issue at least is not a problem for Markit wheels. You'd think therefore that all modellers would naturally use Markit wheels, but they are problematic for EM modellers because of their thickness, and are not suitable for P4 modellers. Plastic centred wheels are therefore a more attractive choice for some but the modeller has to accept the additional skills needed to use them and the known problems associated with the products of the different manufacturers. Gibson's are best regarding cost and have the widest choice of prototype wheels. Delivery is often within 7 days and Brian(?) always answers his phone or returns your call. On the down side their tyres are an interference fit on the centres and are known to come loose on occasion. They also have a reputation for running eccentrically, some types more than others and personally for this reason I would not use them in a rigid chassis although others do. Ultrascale are always of the highest quality (in my opinion), look superb, and run true. The centres are injected and keyed into the tyres so they never separate. They can be ordered on-line. They are expensive (whilst still value for money), and delivery is around 8 months currently so need to be ordered well in advance. The range is less extensive than Gibson's. Sharman wheels have been out of manufacture for many years although there is still some availability apparently. OO/EM wheels are narrower than the wheels of other manufacturers (a positive in my opinion) and the tyres are keyed onto their centres so can't come loose. I personally don't like the fact that the crankpins are captive to the wheels but otherwise I very much like Sharman wheels and would use them if I had a set available to me. Markit's are generally of a high quality, run true, and there is no risk of their slipping on their axle. There is a good range and delivery is generally within a week or two if they are in stock. They are approx double the price of Gibson wheels. On the down side ordering the wheels by phone can be a hit and miss affair. Different people on WW have reported very different experiences from very good to almost impossible to get through. And when you do get through it is a very Marmite experience (personally I like Marmite). As previously mentioned the thickness of the Markit wheels can be problematic. For models with outside cylinders the crank pins may hit the back of the crosshead or slide bar and in EM their extra thickness may mean the wheels don't fit between the splashers. It may therefore be necessary to push out the cylinders, the slide bars or the splashers. If you choose to use plastic centred wheels then quartering, setting the back to back, and (sometimes) securing the wheel to the axle are all skills you will need. To some this may sound particularly daunting but the reality is that these are all skills that are easily acquired (with patience). Whilst it might take a while the first time you try it, it gets easier each time you do it and you are unlikely to damage the wheels whilst you adjust them no matter how long it takes. If you truly desire to build your own model locomotives then you are going to have to put in the effort to develop your skills and your knowledge. Model locomotive kits are about as far removed as they can be from the Ikea approach to construction. The higher the quality you want to achieve the more skills and knowledge you will need to acquire, and the more effort you will have to put in to developing them. To some it comes naturally but to other like me it takes nothing less than grit and determination. I have been modelling all my life but it took me into my 50's before I was happy with what I could achieve. Has the effort been worth it? Abso-bloomin'-lutely! Frank

I have only once had a plastic centred wheel fail, due to a cracked boss, despite my models having to work reasonably hard on full length trains on the Hungerford exhibition layout. I have a theory that when such wheels fail they will be the wheels on the primary driven axle (the one the gearbox is on) because these are taking the full weight of the train. If my theory is correct then if the builder chooses to key any wheels to their axle then it is only the wheels on the primary axle that require keying, the others should be just fine with Loctite. Can I ask those people who use plastic centred wheels, and who have had failures, if their experience supports my theory about it being only those wheels on the primary axle that fail? Thanks, Frank

In the 1920's, around the time the Great Western introduced their toplight coaches, they experimented with building complete sets of articulated stock. They started by building 18 suburban (non corridor) vehicles, four triplets and one sextuplet. The triplets were marshalled in pairs resulting on three sets of six suburban coaches. These were successful and lasted into the late 1950's/early 1960's. Subsequently the Great Western built two articulated express sets comprising a 1st class triplet (including brake end), a kitchen triplet (3rd diner + kitchen car + 1st diner), and a twin first class set (including brake end). These sets were not as successful and were rebuilt as individual coaches in the 1930's although the dining triplets lasted a bit longer. There are pictures in J.H.Russel's book of Great Western Coaches (Part 2). Regards, Frank

Hi Phil, Sadly this will not be possible. Much of the stock has already been lost to the club. BRM did visit the club several years ago to make a DVD featuring both Leicester South and Hungerford (EM) and there is quite a lot of footage on YouTube so that will have to do. Thanks for the suggestion though. Frank