Coulsdon Works

[Bucoops]

11 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Jon,

 

I welcome discussions on coaching stock on this thread. Other threads are often too loco-centric, so it’s nice to have a chance to discuss coach matters and Andrew always keeps us entertained!
 

Andrew and Jon,

 

I have tried the MJT Range and I agree that they’re excellent. Definitely the best sides with good instructions and all the bits recquired to complete a coach. The roofs are a fag with that aluminium- white metal joint to hide and they are expensive as Jon says. I also think they suffer from a similar problem to Hornby in that they have a very limited range and generally not the ones that I want - mainly side door rather than end vestibule stock.
 

I have built all the bits of an MJT coach, but never as one kit. I started with a D.10C restaurant car on a Hornby (shock horror!) donor following Tony Wright’s article in one of the BRM annuals. Please excuse the finish Which is not up to my recent standards.

 

This end vestibule BCK is (I think) nearly all MJT except for the sides which are Mousa. 
 

 

Certainly a joy to build and could produce a nice coach (I’d I could paint teak!) But expensive and time consuming compared to using a Hornby donor.

 

Andy

 

Don't forget Mousa models (Bill Bedford) increases the available range as they are designed to work with MJT parts.

 

https://www.mousa.biz/fourmm/coach/sides/LNER4.html

 

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

At least you could eat it!

 

And then make your escape.

 

41 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Jon,

 

I welcome discussions on coaching stock on this thread. Other threads are often too loco-centric, so it’s nice to have a chance to discuss coach matters and Andrew always keeps us entertained!
 

Andrew and Jon,

 

I have tried the MJT Range and I agree that they’re excellent. Definitely the best sides with good instructions and all the bits recquired to complete a coach. The roofs are a fag with that aluminium- white metal joint to hide and they are expensive as Jon says. I also think they suffer from a similar problem to Hornby in that they have a very limited range and generally not the ones that I want - mainly side door rather than end vestibule stock.
 

I have built all the bits of an MJT coach, but never as one kit. I started with a D.10C restaurant car on a Hornby (shock horror!) donor following Tony Wright’s article in one of the BRM annuals. Please excuse the finish Which is not up to my recent standards.

This end vestibule BCK is (I think) nearly all MJT except for the sides which are Mousa. 
 

Certainly a joy to build and could produce a nice coach (I’d I could paint teak!) But expensive and time consuming compared to using a Hornby donor.

 

Andy

 

I don't think your teak finish looks too bad, it would be too repetitive across a full train and would require a bit more variation. Add a weathering wash and the odd darker panel and I think you would be quite happy.

 

I disagree with you about the diversity of the MJT range, they cover all the types that made up the bulk of Gresley gangway non articulated stock. The end door types were not built in large quantities, and were not regarded as a complete success. For example, the BCK featured above, had only five carriages in the class, two were in Scotland fitted with BS gangways, one on the Master Cutler, leaving too remainders. Presumably at least one was in the White rose? The compartment door stock continued to be built after the end door stock builds were completed.

 

Even in the late fifties, compartment door Gresley stock, outnumbered other Gresley types on the East coast mainline passenger diagrams, it never gets modeled though. I have even heard hobbyists exclaim with some surprise,  surely all the trains were MK1's by 1957! The CWN's would indicate that this was well on its way, the reality was somewhat different, with the MK1 building programe way behind schedule and a reluctance to replace better riding carriages. The CWN's were at best a wannabe document at this time.

Edited July 1, 2020 by Headstock
add a para.

[thegreenhowards]

2 hours ago, Bucoops said:

 

Don't forget Mousa models (Bill Bedford) increases the available range as they are designed to work with MJT parts.

 

https://www.mousa.biz/fourmm/coach/sides/LNER4.html

 

I agree. The second coach is based on Mousa sides and they do work with MJT parts, but the sides are not as good as the MJT ones - door furniture in particular is not so well designed and they’re a bit flimsy. Having said that, the range is excellent and I use a lot of them.

[thegreenhowards]

2 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

And then make your escape.

 

 

I don't think your teak finish looks too bad, it would be too repetitive across a full train and would require a bit more variation. Add a weathering wash and the odd darker panel and I think you would be quite happy.

 

I disagree with you about the diversity of the MJT range, they cover all the types that made up the bulk of Gresley gangway non articulated stock. The end door types were not built in large quantities, and were not regarded as a complete success. For example, the BCK featured above, had only five carriages in the class, two were in Scotland fitted with BS gangways, one on the Master Cutler, leaving too remainders. Presumably at least one was in the White rose? The compartment door stock continued to be built after the end door stock builds were completed.

 

Even in the late fifties, compartment door Gresley stock, outnumbered other Gresley types on the East coast mainline passenger diagrams, it never gets modeled though. I have even heard hobbyists exclaim with some surprise,  surely all the trains were MK1's by 1957! The CWN's would indicate that this was well on its way, the reality was somewhat different, with the MK1 building programe way behind schedule and a reluctance to replace better riding carriages. The CWN's were at best a wannabe document at this time.

Thanks for your comments on the teak - it was my first (and only) attempt. I intend to have another go soon.

 

The BCK I modelled was in the West Riding in 1951 - at least according to the CWN. 

 

I agree that the MJT range covers the majority of coaches built - presumably why both they and Hornby chose these common diagrams. I also agreed that there was far more Gresley stock on ECML trains than the CWNs would suggest. However, I think that by the late ‘50s the majority of Gresleys on the ECML were end vestibule stock except for reliefs/ summer Saturday trains. I now expect you to prove me wrong! 

 

The diagrams that I particularly want are D.155 EV TOs, D.186 TTOs, various catering cars and the 65ft sleepers - none of these are in the MJT range.

 

Andy

[Bucoops]

32 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Thanks for your comments on the teak - it was my first (and only) attempt. I intend to have another go soon.

 

The BCK I modelled was in the West Riding in 1951 - at least according to the CWN. 

 

I agree that the MJT range covers the majority of coaches built - presumably why both they and Hornby chose these common diagrams. I also agreed that there was far more Gresley stock on ECML trains than the CWNs would suggest. However, I think that by the late ‘50s the majority of Gresleys on the ECML were end vestibule stock except for reliefs/ summer Saturday trains. I now expect you to prove me wrong! 

 

The diagrams that I particularly want are D.155 EV TOs, D.186 TTOs, various catering cars and the 65ft sleepers - none of these are in the MJT range.

 

Andy

 

D155 and D186 sides are available from Mousa. I've seen Sleepers on ebay that are Mousa Brand but I can only see a sleeper twin on his site at present - but ask and they may reappear.

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

 

I agree that the MJT range covers the majority of coaches built - presumably why both they and Hornby chose these common diagrams. I also agreed that there was far more Gresley stock on ECML trains than the CWNs would suggest. However, I think that by the late ‘50s the majority of Gresleys on the ECML were end vestibule stock except for reliefs/ summer Saturday trains. I now expect you to prove me wrong! 

 

 

 

Good evening Andy,

 

of course, but I would be posting images all night, the first photo I came across at random. Even Steve Banks thinks that only the catering cars are Gresleys, in this Newcastle bound train in 1957. Can you spot the Gresley compartment door stock?  The comments on 'relief/ summer saturdays trains sounds more like cliche than fact. No distinction was made between end door and compartment door stock at this time, the number of seats were more important. I assume that you would agree that the triplet in the photo wasn't running in a relief or a summer saturdays train. Incidentally, there were more trains running in the daily special trains notices, then there were as sleeping car expresses or Pullmans. The latter always get modelled, all four of them, the former, not a chance.

 

https://www.steve-banks.org/images/historical/coaches/lner_rts/rts_1957_9_14_60108_1500_1000_72.jpg

[thegreenhowards]

1 hour ago, Bucoops said:

 

D155 and D186 sides are available from Mousa. I've seen Sleepers on ebay that are Mousa Brand but I can only see a sleeper twin on his site at present - but ask and they may reappear.

Yes. I have built one of his D.155s.

But it’s wrong for post war stock (I didn’t realise when I built it). The windows on the corridor side were built like this, but were changed in the late ‘30s so that they had ventilators on alternate windows. His D.211 CK is correct for the post war corridor side and I have a set of D.211 and D.155 sides in stock to make one correct D.155. I then need to find someone who wants a pre war D.211 for the leftover sides!

 

I must try one of his D.186s in due course.

 

I’ve seen ‘Bill Bedford’ sleepers on eBay and rang him up. He says that he hasn’t produced them since the Bill Bedford days and he’s not planning to start anytime soon.

 

I’ve built his sleeper twin first.

 

 

 

[thegreenhowards]

33 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Andy,

 

of course, but I would be posting images all night, the first photo I came across at random. Even Steve Banks thinks that only the catering cars are Gresleys, in this Newcastle bound train in 1957. Can you spot the Gresley compartment door stock?  The comments on 'relief/ summer saturdays trains sounds more like cliche than fact. No distinction was made between end door and compartment door stock at this time, the number of seats were more important. I assume that you would agree that the triplet in the photo wasn't running in a relief or a summer saturdays train. Incidentally, there were more trains running in the daily special trains notices, then there were as sleeping car expresses or Pullmans. The latter always get modelled, all four of them, the former, not a chance.

 

https://www.steve-banks.org/images/historical/coaches/lner_rts/rts_1957_9_14_60108_1500_1000_72.jpg

Obviously the triplet is in normal service. I thought we’d already agreed that catering cars were normally Gresley or Thompson. I can’t spot a Side door Gresley in the rake although I can spot five Thompsons. Is the Gresley the very back coach which is rather indistinct?
 

I run a couple of reliefs in my sequence. At the moment this is with the same set of stock, but I’m working on having a rake of corridor stock (mainly EV but with some side door) and a rake of opens (including my much maligned steel tourist twin).

 

Edited July 1, 2020 by thegreenhowards
Added photo

[31A]

Another source of parts for LNER coaches is the etched sides produced by Worsley Works; they seem to be produced to order as far as I can make out from their web site.

 

I've got a set of sides for a 1st Class Restaurant Car that I'm grafting onto a Hornby coach at the moment, despite and bearing in mind Andrew's dire warnings which I read earlier and am fully in agreement with!  I offered the sides up to the Campling drawing in Historic Railway Carriages and they seem to be accurate for height, window size etc.  I've had to shave off about half a mill from the bottom of the Hornby ends to make them match the sides for height.  The sides are produced in similar style to MJT or D&S kits, i.e. with the side as one piece and the lower panelling as inserts, which I prefer, rather than being split horizontally in the way Comet ones are.

[Headstock]

13 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Obviously the triplet is in normal service. I thought we’d already agreed that catering cars were normally Gresley or Thompson. I can’t spot a Side door Gresley in the rake although I can spot five Thompsons. Is the Gresley the very back coach which is rather indistinct?
 

I run a couple of reliefs in my sequence. At the moment this is with the same set of stock, but I’m working on having a rake of corridor stock (mainly EV but with some side door) and a rake of opens (including my much maligned steel tourist twin).

 

 

 

The third carriage back from the triplet is a compartment door Gresley, as clear as day. Note the broad cream band beneath the shorter windows as compared to the Thompsons. Also the four step boards under the doors on the corridor side and the roof mounted destination board, indicating a carriage part of the booked formation. Next a maroon MK1, destination board visible beneath the cornice, spindly solebars, deeper windows. Then one or two more carriages, definitely Gresley, again with the shorter windows broad cream band.

 

Your much maligned tourist twin is a very nice looking bit of modeling, there is no doubt that the increase in your skill levels is very impressive. Your research is still a bit lazy though.

[thegreenhowards]

2 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

The third carriage back from the triplet is a compartment door Gresley, as clear as day. Note the broad cream band beneath the shorter windows as compared to the Thompsons. Also the four step boards under the doors on the corridor side and the roof mounted destination board, indicating a carriage part of the booked formation. Next a maroon MK1, destination board visible beneath the cornice, spindly solebars, deeper windows. Then one or two more carriages, definitely Gresley, again with the shorter windows broad cream band.

 

Your much maligned tourist twin is a very nice looking bit of modeling, there is no doubt that the increase in your skill levels is very impressive. Your research is still a bit lazy though.

Ok I can see that now you point it out. My eyes need to be tuned into that sort of thing.

 

Thanks for the comments on my tourist twin. I would like to think I’m impatient rather than lazy! If I can’t get 100% proof of something I make an educated guess in the interests of progress. I know you don’t agree with that approach but there we’ll have to agree to differ.

 

Andy

 

 

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

Ok I can see that now you point it out. My eyes need to be tuned into that sort of thing.

 

Thanks for the comments on my tourist twin. I would like to think I’m impatient rather than lazy! If I can’t get 100% proof of something I make an educated guess in the interests of progress. I know you don’t agree with that approach but there we’ll have to agree to differ.

 

Andy

 

 

 

Morning Andy,

 

Impatience is a sort of laziness, are you quite so sure about the corridor windows on the dia 155 end door third.......................................or did Isinglass get it..........................................again?

[thegreenhowards]

7 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Morning Andy,

 

Impatience is a sort of laziness, are you quite so sure about the corridor windows on the dia 155 end door third.......................................or did Isinglass get it..........................................again?

I’d say waiting for research that may never come is a form of laziness. I’d rather get on with some modelling!
 

I’m not quoting Isinglass. I’m quoting Harris and photographs. I can’t say for sure that 100% were done.

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

I’d say waiting for research that may never come is a form of laziness. I’d rather get on with some modelling!
 

I’m not quoting Isinglass. I’m quoting Harris and photographs. I can’t say for sure that 100% were done.

 

Good morning Andy,

 

you don't wait for research, It's not like a bus. it's something you have to go out and get, like spaghetti hoops. Unless you have a friendly helper who drops the answer in you lap, as was the case with your twin prior to the start of your build, if you care to go back and check. Personally, I would rather do the right kind of modeling, it saves a hell of a lot of time.

 

I'm not sure how you Quote  photographs, but you would require one of every carriage in support Harris. I could post photographs to the contrary, or you could go look for yourself, the latter probably has less appeal, so I would just stop quoting Harris on the matter, forget about the vents and get on with some modeling.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Headstock
clarify a point.

[John Tomlinson]

What an interesting set of exchanges this is. Let me see if I've got this right.

 

1) Neither of the RTR offerings purporting to be Gresley teak 61ft stock are correct. The ancient Hornby is too short, and modern Hornby looks nice, but on closer examination is deeply flawed in body shape, size and also, less generally recognised, the underframe - see Andrew's blistering analysis above.

 

2) The plastic kits, Kirks, are also flawed, with windows that are too deep unless individually flush glazed (mega tedium) and also possibly the wrong size (a bit). The roof shape vis. the dome is also wrong, although Comet do supply roofs to this shape for their etched brass kits. Given that cutting and shutting etched brass is almost impossible, Andy's splendid work with Kirks shown in this thread is the only realistic way to produce coaches that aren't done by the etched brass manufacturers.

 

3) The 3D prints from Isinglass are still to be assessed. They look promising in terms of potential range, and relative speed of assembly, but there has been the odd initial blooper in design and more generally we know that the material is fragile and needs care on assembly.

 

4) This leaves us with Etched brass from Mousa, Comet (inc.RDEB), MJT, Worsley Works (sides only), possibly others. Great outcome, but very time intensive.

 

So 4) and possibly 3) give us the only 100% pukka outcomes, and everything else is a compromise, even tacking brass sides onto Hornby donors without serious butchery to the latter. If you want coaches not produced by the etching boys you need to go Andy's route and use Kirk sides suitably cut and shut.

 

As we all know, compromise is a personal matter, and only the individual can judge what they find acceptable!

 

John.

[thegreenhowards]

13 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

What an interesting set of exchanges this is. Let me see if I've got this right.

 

1) Neither of the RTR offerings purporting to be Gresley teak 61ft stock are correct. The ancient Hornby is too short, and modern Hornby looks nice, but on closer examination is deeply flawed in body shape, size and also, less generally recognised, the underframe - see Andrew's blistering analysis above.

 

2) The plastic kits, Kirks, are also flawed, with windows that are too deep unless individually flush glazed (mega tedium) and also possibly the wrong size (a bit). The roof shape vis. the dome is also wrong, although Comet do supply roofs to this shape for their etched brass kits. Given that cutting and shutting etched brass is almost impossible, Andy's splendid work with Kirks shown in this thread is the only realistic way to produce coaches that aren't done by the etched brass manufacturers.

 

3) The 3D prints from Isinglass are still to be assessed. They look promising in terms of potential range, and relative speed of assembly, but there has been the odd initial blooper in design and more generally we know that the material is fragile and needs care on assembly.

 

4) This leaves us with Etched brass from Mousa, Comet (inc.RDEB), MJT, Worsley Works (sides only), possibly others. Great outcome, but very time intensive.

 

So 4) and possibly 3) give us the only 100% pukka outcomes, and everything else is a compromise, even tacking brass sides onto Hornby donors without serious butchery to the latter. If you want coaches not produced by the etching boys you need to go Andy's route and use Kirk sides suitably cut and shut.

 

As we all know, compromise is a personal matter, and only the individual can judge what they find acceptable!

 

John.

A good summary John.

 

I would say that Kirks are definitely ‘of their time‘ and there’s a lot more wrong with them than just their window depth. The underframe is worse than Hornby’s and needs to be replaced with MJT - no bad thing as it gives much needed weight. My cut and shuts are good enough for me as layout coaches, but are definitely not ‘high end’.

 

I think Isinglass is promising but Andrew has gone back to work full time so I suspect new kits will be slow in coming on stream.

 

Etched brass is not too time consuming except when there’s masses of door furniture. I like it as a media. It’s expensive though and the range is lacking in the areas I want. I’m interested on why you say cutting and shutting brass is almost impossible. I’ve bought some suburban sides From Southern Pride to do just that as I want a D.192/3 twin and nobody makes one. Do you have a bad experience to relate?

 

Andy

 

 

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, John Tomlinson said:

What an interesting set of exchanges this is. Let me see if I've got this right.

 

1) Neither of the RTR offerings purporting to be Gresley teak 61ft stock are correct. The ancient Hornby is too short, and modern Hornby looks nice, but on closer examination is deeply flawed in body shape, size and also, less generally recognised, the underframe - see Andrew's blistering analysis above.

 

2) The plastic kits, Kirks, are also flawed, with windows that are too deep unless individually flush glazed (mega tedium) and also possibly the wrong size (a bit). The roof shape vis. the dome is also wrong, although Comet do supply roofs to this shape for their etched brass kits. Given that cutting and shutting etched brass is almost impossible, Andy's splendid work with Kirks shown in this thread is the only realistic way to produce coaches that aren't done by the etched brass manufacturers.

 

3) The 3D prints from Isinglass are still to be assessed. They look promising in terms of potential range, and relative speed of assembly, but there has been the odd initial blooper in design and more generally we know that the material is fragile and needs care on assembly.

 

4) This leaves us with Etched brass from Mousa, Comet (inc.RDEB), MJT, Worsley Works (sides only), possibly others. Great outcome, but very time intensive.

 

So 4) and possibly 3) give us the only 100% pukka outcomes, and everything else is a compromise, even tacking brass sides onto Hornby donors without serious butchery to the latter. If you want coaches not produced by the etching boys you need to go Andy's route and use Kirk sides suitably cut and shut.

 

As we all know, compromise is a personal matter, and only the individual can judge what they find acceptable!

 

John.

 

Afternoon John,

 

there has never been a perfect solution, especially if you figure cost into the equation. That is why I have in the past taken the best bits on offer from different manufactures. However, construction is based on a standard frame work, that speeds construction, is cost effective and accurate. This approach delivers a fleet of carriages that looks like they have come out of the same workshops, rather than a potpourri of different manufactures.

 

I use to be able to turn out a crackingly good 61'6'' gangwayed carriage for between forty five and fifty quid. Currently, this has become over seventy quid. Thankfully, I have done most of my building and have plenty of bits in stock if I require any more. I won't be building that many more though. That is why I am somewhat despondent about the inaccuracies in the Isinglass carriages. It also makes sense, to put pressure on Hornby to sort out their crappy models, so that the likes of me and thee can wack some brass sides on them for reasonable cost. In that sense it is immaterial what Hornby produce, as long as they are good. 

Edited July 2, 2020 by Headstock
clarify a point. Add para

[John Tomlinson]

29 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

A good summary John.

 

I would say that Kirks are definitely ‘of their time‘ and there’s a lot more wrong with them than just their window depth. The underframe is worse than Hornby’s and needs to be replaced with MJT - no bad thing as it gives much needed weight. My cut and shuts are good enough for me as layout coaches, but are definitely not ‘high end’.

 

I think Isinglass is promising but Andrew has gone back to work full time so I suspect new kits will be slow in coming on stream.

 

Etched brass is not too time consuming except when there’s masses of door furniture. I like it as a media. It’s expensive though and the range is lacking in the areas I want. I’m interested on why you say cutting and shutting brass is almost impossible. I’ve bought some suburban sides From Southern Pride to do just that as I want a D.192/3 twin and nobody makes one. Do you have a bad experience to relate?

 

Andy

 

 

The reason for my comment about cutting and shutting etched brass is that I've been pondering the very thing! I'm on a roll going through my cupboards and seeing what's in there that I should get on and deal with. There are a couple of Jidenco kits for GC 60ft stock, one of which has been etched the wrong way round. The only way to build the coach correctly is a cut and shut, and I've worked out where to make the cuts. It would however be quite testing;

 

1) i think I need to do the cuts first and then make the tumblehome, doing it the other way round would make the cutting quite difficult. So the tumblehomes are going to have to match exactly. I do have rolling bars so that helps.

2) the cuts need to be absolutely right and probably made by scoring with a knife - it won't be feasible to tack a bit extra on as one would with plastic to cope with a mistake.

3) the butt joint between sections is obviously very thin unlike with plastic. It will need to be soldered spot on and also with carefully placed strengtheners behind. I'm not frightened of soldering, indeed I quite like the precision and speed of the outcome, but this will nonetheless be something of a challenge.

4) probably before starting out I need to drill for the door furniture and make all such holes to ensure they line up correctly.

5) there are four sections after I make the cuts. This will be more than enough to get right. Looking at the number of parts in some of your Sleepers and the opening Restaurant Car I don't think I'd like to be doing them in bits of brass.

 

So yes, my comment "almost impossible" is a bit strong, but it won't be simple either to get a decent outcome.

 

By the way, in general terms of "acceptable compromise" I'd be more than delighted if I'd produced half your output to anywhere near that standard.

 

John.

[thegreenhowards]

35 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

The reason for my comment about cutting and shutting etched brass is that I've been pondering the very thing! I'm on a roll going through my cupboards and seeing what's in there that I should get on and deal with. There are a couple of Jidenco kits for GC 60ft stock, one of which has been etched the wrong way round. The only way to build the coach correctly is a cut and shut, and I've worked out where to make the cuts. It would however be quite testing;

 

1) i think I need to do the cuts first and then make the tumblehome, doing it the other way round would make the cutting quite difficult. So the tumblehomes are going to have to match exactly. I do have rolling bars so that helps.

2) the cuts need to be absolutely right and probably made by scoring with a knife - it won't be feasible to tack a bit extra on as one would with plastic to cope with a mistake.

3) the butt joint between sections is obviously very thin unlike with plastic. It will need to be soldered spot on and also with carefully placed strengtheners behind. I'm not frightened of soldering, indeed I quite like the precision and speed of the outcome, but this will nonetheless be something of a challenge.

4) probably before starting out I need to drill for the door furniture and make all such holes to ensure they line up correctly.

5) there are four sections after I make the cuts. This will be more than enough to get right. Looking at the number of parts in some of your Sleepers and the opening Restaurant Car I don't think I'd like to be doing them in bits of brass.

 

So yes, my comment "almost impossible" is a bit strong, but it won't be simple either to get a decent outcome.

 

By the way, in general terms of "acceptable compromise" I'd be more than delighted if I'd produced half your output to anywhere near that standard.

 

John.

John,

 

I haven’t got as far as you in thinking it through, but I was relying on solder being quite good at filling gaps. I certainly agree with cut and shutting first and then doing the tumblehome. I just use a beach spade handle as my rolling bars but it seems to work!

 

Thanks for your comments about my modelling. 

 

Andy

[jwealleans]

Graham Nicholas used sides from at least 3 different manufacturers and did some cut and shut work to achieve the Howlden quint set on Grantham.   Perhaps a reading of his thread would throw up some more insight into the problems with doing so?   I haven't tried it to any significant extent myself, the nearest I've come was correcting windows on a Jidenco 60' GC matchboard carriage.

[Clive Mortimore]

With a bit of imagination there are other routes and cheaper.

BSO

 

A GE section FK

TSO

 

All from Hornby Railroad coaches. One day they will be finished.

[John Tomlinson]

Hi Clive, the wierd thing to me about the Hornby Railroads is that dimensionally they're a lot closer than one might think. The window spacings and sizings aren't far out at all, they simply mucked around with the ends to get them onto the chassis they already had. Even less forgiveable that the company then went on to make something of a Horlicks of their modern offerings.

 

I'm sure you know this anyway, but South East Finecast do one of their flush glazing sets for them, not perfect I realise but worth a thought.

 

John.

Edited July 2, 2020 by John Tomlinson
typo

[Jon4470]

My attempt at a brass side cut and shut came about because I wanted a Diagram 29 Brake first. I used MJT first corridor sides and joined them to a brake end...although door positions etc needed to be rearranged. Unfortunately I thought all brake panelling was the same size...lesson learned, after I cut everything to the correct number of panels and found the side was too short! New brake third sides have been delivered since then to re- start the process.

 

My plan was to make the joins and then form the tumble home. The joins just to the right of the brake portion are at diagonal opposite corners so that the lower panel will support them. The other joins are vertical and I plan to support them with a strip of spare etch.

 

 

 

 

Jon

 

[thegreenhowards]

Moving away from coaches for a bit here are some photos of my latest project.

 

 

It’s built from the DJH kit and is now at the running 0-4-0 chassis and nearly finished body stage. The LNER afficiandos on here should be able to tell exactly which loco this is, but can anyone guess how I plan to use it on Gresley Jn?!

 

 

[JamieR4489]

Plant Centenarian with 251?