Coulsdon Works

[thegreenhowards]

On 21/01/2020 at 16:42, davidw said:

60108 needs a double chimney. That and front steps can be got from Graeme King. He regularly contributes on Wright writes.

David pointed out the lack of a double chimney on my new 60108 a few weeks back. I thought that was a quick job....but one thing leads to another and Being forced to take a close look at the front of the loco I realised that all sorts of things were wrong. So, it’s had:

• a new streamlined dome to replace the banjo dome fitted;
• top lamp iron moved down and placed between a new split handrail directly above the smoke box door hinges
• front footsteps made from plastic (to avoid any shorting issues) - the jury’s still out on this as the steps keep falling off despite me trying plastic weld and superglue;
• a smoke box door plate on the hinge; and
• Complete renewal of the buffer beam which was a mess including new sprung brass buffers.

That will teach me not to buy ready made kits off eBay! I hope she now looks the part. If anyone notices something else I’ve missed, please shout.

 

Edited February 29, 2020 by thegreenhowards

[great northern]

On 24/02/2020 at 17:08, thegreenhowards said:

I’ve just finished another Kirk cut ‘n’ shut. This time it’s a Gresley 66ft SLF. These are very elegant coaches and a particular favourite of mine. I’m hopping that Isinglass will do some kits in due course, but until then Kirk cut ‘n’ shuts are the way to go. Here is the coach.

 

The sides and ends come from the shorter SLF which Kirk did. The roof and under frame is MJT with Heavy Duty bogies.

 

 

This will form part of my Aberdonian rake which I‘ve been backdating from 1957 (mixed Maroon & C/C) to 1955 (all C/C). The displaced maroon SLF will form party of my Night Scotsman rake.

 

This got hidden in my spam folder Andy, thus postponing a large portion of envy. Lovely job, resulting, as you say, in a very attractive car, and greatly increasing my desire to have some. Kirk's are as rare as hen's teeth, and look like staying that way, so is Isinglass the way to go?

[thegreenhowards]

20 hours ago, great northern said:

This got hidden in my spam folder Andy, thus postponing a large portion of envy. Lovely job, resulting, as you say, in a very attractive car, and greatly increasing my desire to have some. Kirk's are as rare as hen's teeth, and look like staying that way, so is Isinglass the way to go?

Thanks Gilbert,

 

I’m reserving judgement on Isinglass until I’ve finished the steel twin TO that I’m building. I’m at the filler primer and sanding back stage which is taking a while and that would be more difficult on a coach with beading, so I’m not 100% convinced. I intend to get my kit finished for Ally Pally and talk to Isinglass there.

 

Andy

[thegreenhowards]

Quite a while since I posted on here, but I’ve not been idle. Here we have BR Standard 5MT 73157.

 

 

This is a DJH kit bought off eBay ready built but, as normal with secondhand kits, it has needed quite some work to make it ready for my layout, Gresley Jn. It was built to a fairly good basic standard and fitted with a DJH GB1 motor gearbox, so for £100 it was good value. However, it was missing some finishing details and had only been static displayed so needed a lot of work to make it run reliably. 

 

On the cosmetics, I’ve renumbered it from ‘Maid of Astolat’ to 73157, one of the trio which spent a year at King’s Cross in 57/58. I also added things like crew, coal, lamp irons (staples in my case as I prefer robustness over finesse) and the delightful cast plates on the rear of the tender which are from Modelmaster. It was fitted with three coal division plates which I’m pretty sure is wrong. I removed the middle one and have left in the foreword one which seems to be correct for a BR1B tender, but I’m not sure what should be in the gap between the forward and rear division plates as prototype photos from above are rare. Can anyone help? The  photos show that it still need some paint touched up. 

 

The mechanics were more of an issue as is often the case with second hand kits. The first thing which happened was the worm gear popping off the motor in the DJH gearbox. This is a common problem which I’ve had twice before, so I just used one of the stock of spares which DJH sent me the first time it happened. Apart from that the pick ups were useless and I’ve had to add tender pickups and the valve gear has disintegrated on several occasions. I keep think I’m finally getting it there, then fitting a DCC chip and finding it still doesn’t work reliably enough to run smoothly. So, for now it’s staying analogue while I run it in a bit more.

 

 

[John Tomlinson]

Andy, I think you've made a wise choice of source for your 73xxx. I have now three of the Bachmann examples. They are beautiful models with lots of twiddly bits but haulage wise pretty rubbish. Even with weights added all over the place they really struggle, and I wouldn't give much hope on your full length trains with lots of metal.

 

John

[thegreenhowards]

3 hours ago, John Tomlinson said:

Andy, I think you've made a wise choice of source for your 73xxx. I have now three of the Bachmann examples. They are beautiful models with lots of twiddly bits but haulage wise pretty rubbish. Even with weights added all over the place they really struggle, and I wouldn't give much hope on your full length trains with lots of metal.

 

John

I had heard bad things about the haulage capacity of the Bachmann version which is why I went down the DJH route. This one will need further weighting to get up to a 10+ coach train as it slips slightly on the six coaches. I think this is partly because of the tender pick ups creating friction so I may have to tune these first.

[thegreenhowards]

Another project I have just started is the creation of the full 1951 Heart of Midlothian as it was launched. This was one of the ‘Festival of Britain’ full mark 1 sets of which a handful were spread around the country. Most of the rake is available RTR, but two coaches are not - the Kitchen Car, of which more later, and the RSO. The latter is produced by Southern Pride in their ‘etchmaster’ range which are exceptional value. Basically you get a etched brass side and a plastic shell. Here is my work in progress.

 

 

I’m never very keen on producing crimson and cream coaches as I haven’t found good Halfords matches and I hate masking things anyway. This was hand painted with precision paints enamels and isn’t too bad, but doesn’t bear very close scrutiny.

 

The main work remaining is finishing the underframe, decals and painting the roof and underframe. However, I have a slight problem in that the ride height seems too high - about 1mm higher than a Bachmann equivalent. The difference seems to be in the gap between the bogies and solebar. I have used the recommended Bachmann bogie mounting from Southern pride as shown below.

 

Has anyone else had this problem?

 

Andy

[Headstock]

4 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Another project I have just started is the creation of the full 1951 Heart of Midlothian as it was launched. This was one of the ‘Festival of Britain’ full mark 1 sets of which a handful were spread around the country. Most of the rake is available RTR, but two coaches are not - the Kitchen Car, of which more later, and the RSO. The latter is produced by Southern Pride in their ‘etchmaster’ range which are exceptional value. Basically you get a etched brass side and a plastic shell. Here is my work in progress.

 

 

I’m never very keen on producing crimson and cream coaches as I haven’t found good Halfords matches and I hate masking things anyway. This was hand painted with precision paints enamels and isn’t too bad, but doesn’t bear very close scrutiny.

 

The main work remaining is finishing the underframe, decals and painting the roof and underframe. However, I have a slight problem in that the ride height seems too high - about 1mm higher than a Bachmann equivalent. The difference seems to be in the gap between the bogies and solebar. I have used the recommended Bachmann bogie mounting from Southern pride as shown below.

 

Has anyone else had this problem?

 

Andy

 

Afternoon Andy,

 

my advice would be, never trust RTR or kit instructions when it comes to ride height, or any other height of all stock. Check the dimensions on the real thing and make a decision from there.

[thegreenhowards]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Afternoon Andy,

 

my advice would be, never trust RTR or kit instructions when it comes to ride height, or any other height of all stock. Check the dimensions on the real thing and make a decision from there.

I’m sure you’re right. Although in practice I wont be altering the ride height of the 11 Bachmann/ Hornby coaches in the rake, so the two kit built ones will have to fit in with that. I think I’ll have to file 1mm off the mounting plate.

 

 

[John Tomlinson]

13 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

I’m sure you’re right. Although in practice I wont be altering the ride height of the 11 Bachmann/ Hornby coaches in the rake, so the two kit built ones will have to fit in with that. I think I’ll have to file 1mm off the mounting plate.

 

 

Long ago, I concluded that as the great bulk of my coaches on the layout were to be Bachmann Mk1's, I'd take their height as reference for everything else. So my few kit built efforts would be correct relative to these, and any others would be adjusted to be consistent within a rake - my rakes are generally fixed.

 

So long as the whole thing looks consistent, it works for me!

 

John.

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

I’m sure you’re right. Although in practice I wont be altering the ride height of the 11 Bachmann/ Hornby coaches in the rake, so the two kit built ones will have to fit in with that. I think I’ll have to file 1mm off the mounting plate.

 

 

 

I don't have any Mk1's I'm afraid, ugly looking things. However, surely it does no harm to actually know something about the thing that you purport to model, such as basic dimensions. With everything handed to so many on a plate these days, knowledge of the real railway is becoming increasingly separated from the Hobby.

[thegreenhowards]

27 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

I don't have any Mk1's I'm afraid, ugly looking things. However, surely it does no harm to actually know something about the thing that you purport to model, such as basic dimensions. With everything handed to so many on a plate these days, knowledge of the real railway is becoming increasingly separated from the Hobby.

Andrew,

 

I think I should found a mark 1 appreciation society to protect them from such abuse! I find them rather pleasing to look at, although I would agree that they get boring en mass and I enjoy having an excuse to mix it up with some pre-BR rolling stock.
 

I also agree that, in general, one should know the dimensions of what one is trying to model and get it right. However, I’m 56 and only have one life time so, as John has said, given the number of Mark 1s that I need, I will make do with the Bachmann dimensions for them. 
 

However I have some good news for the dimension police. I have just gone and measured a Bachmann Mark 1 and it is spot on for the 12ft 4.5inch ride height above rail that my diagrams show. So I think I can go back to worrying about how to make my Southern Pride kit conform to Bachmann ride heights.

 

Andy

 

 

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

Andrew,

 

I think I should found a mark 1 appreciation society to protect them from such abuse! I find them rather pleasing to look at, although I would agree that they get boring en mass and I enjoy having an excuse to mix it up with some pre-BR rolling stock.
 

I also agree that, in general, one should know the dimensions of what one is trying to model and get it right. However, I’m 56 and only have one life time so, as John has said, given the number of Mark 1s that I need, I will make do with the Bachmann dimensions for them. 
 

However I have some good news for the dimension police. I have just gone and measured a Bachmann Mark 1 and it is spot on for the 12ft 4.5inch ride height above rail that my diagrams show. So I think I can go back to worrying about how to make my Southern Pride kit conform to Bachmann ride heights.

 

Andy

 

 

 

There you go, proof that checking the real thing pays dividends. Though 12'4.5'' sounds a little on the high side for the ride height. Gresley carriages are usually 3' 5 1/4'' from rail to the centre of the buffers.

Edited March 22, 2020 by Headstock
add info

[Buhar]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

There you go, proof that checking the real thing pays dividends. Though 12'4.5'' sounds a little on the high side for the ride height. Gresley carriages are usually 3' 5 1/4'' from rail to the centre of the buffers.

Interesting that we have vertical dimensions to a quarter and a half of an inch stated on a diagrams (presumably) for vehicles that are sprung.  When full of passengers and their luggage.....? 

 

I use 3'6" as my buffer height, it's easy to measure.  I know worn wheels and worn springs would play havoc over the years but, like wonky footplates and dented sheet metal, it doesn't model well.

 

Alan

[thegreenhowards]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

There you go, proof that checking the real thing pays dividends. Though 12'4.5'' sounds a little on the high side for the ride height. Gresley carriages are usually 3' 5 1/4'' from rail to the centre of the buffers.

I meant from the rail to the top of the roof!

[Headstock]

50 minutes ago, Buhar said:

Interesting that we have vertical dimensions to a quarter and a half of an inch stated on a diagrams (presumably) for vehicles that are sprung.  When full of passengers and their luggage.....? 

 

I use 3'6" as my buffer height, it's easy to measure.  I know worn wheels and worn springs would play havoc over the years but, like wonky footplates and dented sheet metal, it doesn't model well.

 

Alan

 

Good evening Alan,

 

The difference between the spring compression on a loaded and unloaded full size carriage is so small that it wouldn't register on the human eye. With regard to the quoted measurement, I would expect odd measurement when you are halving buffer dimensions on top of everything else.

 

What you chose as a ride height is of course, your choice and yours is a perfectly reasonable one. The point is more that, armed with the correct information, an individual can make an informed choice about their modelling, rather than one from a position of ignorance. There are many threads on RM web concerning the ride height of different RTR manufactures carriages, all asking who is right? Not one of them thinks to consult the real thing as at least a reference point on which to work. All ultimately remain ignorant for the want of a little work.

 

28 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

I meant from the rail to the top of the roof!

 

Good evening Andy,

 

Roof height is not ride height. The two can be altered independently of one another.

Edited March 22, 2020 by Headstock
removed comer that displayed as a quote

[thegreenhowards]

Next coach fresh out of Coulsdon works is another Gresley 66ft sleeper, E1156 E.

 

 

This is another of my Kirk ‘cut and shuts’ and it will form part of my ‘Night Scotsman’ rake as you can see from the coach roof boards. The roof is MJT as are most of the underframe fittings.

 

Sadly, I have now run out of old Kirk sleeper kits to cut up. I was relying on Isinglass to produce some resin 3D printed kits, but speaking to Andrew last weekend at the Basingstoke show (was that really only 9 days ago - how the world has changed!) he has had to go back to work so the kits will not appear anytime soon. I have enough Kirk bits left to do a corridor side and had started to scratch build a D.227 berth side to go with it, but that got put on the back burner when isinglass seemed like a good prospect. I may need to revisit it now.

 

Andy

 

 

[Jon4470]

Hi Andy

 

Nice to see another 66’ sleeper. I that they add variety to the rakes of coaches ( I also liked seeing the 3 compartment brakes on your layout - for the same reason)

 

I have acquired two Bill Bedford kits for this type ( and want one more if I can find one). These are destined for the Sleeper portion of the 1930s Northern Belle.

 

I was struggling to find a way to produce the 61’ sleeper firsts that were also used in the Belle.....until some Kirk sides appeared on EBay. I know Hornby do a sleeper first....but I don’t like them so I think that Kirk/MJT will be a better route.

 

Jon

 

 

[thegreenhowards]

16 minutes ago, Jon4470 said:

Hi Andy

 

Nice to see another 66’ sleeper. I that they add variety to the rakes of coaches ( I also liked seeing the 3 compartment brakes on your layout - for the same reason)

 

I have acquired two Bill Bedford kits for this type ( and want one more if I can find one). These are destined for the Sleeper portion of the 1930s Northern Belle.

 

I was struggling to find a way to produce the 61’ sleeper firsts that were also used in the Belle.....until some Kirk sides appeared on EBay. I know Hornby do a sleeper first....but I don’t like them so I think that Kirk/MJT will be a better route.

 

Jon

 

 

Ahh, was it you fighting me on eBay for the Bill Bedford kit?!

 

The Night Scotsman varied over the years, but had up to 7 of these long Gresley SLFs - at least according to the CWN. I think I will have to find a slightly more practical formation. I will probably start with the SO version which needs two and a artic twin (which I have built).

 

The 61ft version was quite rare by the late 50s except as a weekend/ summer strengthener. When required I use the Hornby version. I know its a bit fat, but the rest is better than I could achieve, and I think it looks fine in the middle of a rake (where the tumblehome is partly hidden).

 

Andy

[Jon4470]

3 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Ahh, was it you fighting me on eBay for the Bill Bedford kit?!

 

 

Quite possibly - sorry

 

Your SO version sounds like a good idea to me.

 

Jon

[Mike 84C]

Coal divisions in BR tenders, I remember  them well, they seemed to get filled up with spillage from the front compartment, which never got dug out between shoppings,  firemen walked over the coal so it finished up as a load of slack which  was very difficult and hard work to dig out and pitch over into the front compartment. A pointless modification modification in my book.

[thegreenhowards]

18 minutes ago, Mike 84C said:

Coal divisions in BR tenders, I remember  them well, they seemed to get filled up with spillage from the front compartment, which never got dug out between shoppings,  firemen walked over the coal so it finished up as a load of slack which  was very difficult and hard work to dig out and pitch over into the front compartment. A pointless modification modification in my book.

Thanks. That confirms the one photo I found which seemed to have some coal in the space between the divisions. So if I fill it with a fine layer of coal dust that would presumably be about right?

[Mike 84C]

Yes be fine, keep it sort of flat on a level just below the top of the tender sides. Under the top of the curve.  Some 9f's had that divided tender nothing but agro; and a serious tripping hazard in the dark.  Great British design! If the loco was going a long way like S.Wales where they didnt always get much of a servicing before coming back to the midlands, the front of the tender would have an enourmos pile of coal on it and that was after filling the firebox. So much for scientific firing!

[thegreenhowards]

I've made some progress on a V2 over the last couple of days, This is a Jamieson body bought ready built off eBay and a Comet chassis again bought off eBay, but in this case with an old Bachmann body on top. I've discarded the Bachmann body (eBay in due course!) and made one good engine out of the two parts.

 

As far as I can see the body has been well built apart from the drain holes on the firebox which are wonky and will need redoing.

 

 

I have a question for any experts out there on how to ballast the loco. The body is pretty light and will need stuffing with lead. However the boiler only has a small hole through which to access the front as below.

 

 

I could pour liquid lead through the hole, but how would I seal it? I've heard that PVA will react with the lead and expand over time. Does anyone have any suggestions?

 

Andy

[Michael Edge]

Have you tried Cerrobend? Quite expensive but you can even pour it into plastic models with care - I've even resorted to pouring it down the chimney occasionally.