Coulsdon Works

[jwealleans]

Andy,

 

It may be a red herring, but my thought on curtains was light blue.   I've just been sent the interior decoration specification for the Tourist stock and both buffet cars in those sets specify blue curtains (one is 'blue to sample' and the other 'Wedgwood blue'). 

[thegreenhowards]

3 hours ago, jwealleans said:

Andy,

 

It may be a red herring, but my thought on curtains was light blue.   I've just been sent the interior decoration specification for the Tourist stock and both buffet cars in those sets specify blue curtains (one is 'blue to sample' and the other 'Wedgwood blue'). 

Thanks Jonathan,

 

My guess from the black and white photos would have been a light blue or green, so I'll go with Wedgewood blue. 

 

Andy

 

 

[thegreenhowards]

I’ve not posted much on here recently but I haven’t been idle. I’ve been doing a lot of work fitting sound chips to locos. That’s not very visual but they will make their mark on Gresley Jn shortly.

 

Apart from that I’ve finally tracked down a Locomotion/ Bachmann GNR Atlantic at a sensible price so I’ve been fitting the detailing pack to that.

 

 

It really is a beautiful model. I can here you saying ‘why has he left that horrible coupling on the front’. Well it will need to run in a pair when it enters service like this.

 

 

I think they will look very fine on railtour duties.   My plan is to run them on 1700 KX-Peterborough as they did as a test before the Plant Centenarian Railtour. That should be about a month’s time given my current rate of progress on the Gresley Jn schedule. So I have that long to get them chipped and sort out some coaches!

 

Andy

 

 

[thegreenhowards]

Ive also been sorting out this EE Type 4 with some help from Clive Mortimore of this parish.

It’s a Bachmann D211 from about 5-6 years ago but has never worked properly. It’s been back to the Bachmann service department once and worked briefly but then got thrown back in the too difficult pile. It has a rather strange split axle pick up system which is covered in pink grease and does seem to have caused a lot of people problems. 

 

Anyway, I dug it out again a couple of weeks ago thinking I would fit some extra pick ups but found the sound decoder had completely failed - I think that it may have been part of the problem all along. I substituted a non sound decoder with stay alive and it ran perfectly - stay alive is definitely one of the advantages of DCC. So Ive now ordered and fitted a Youchoos Zimo sound decoder with stayalive and she works well and sounds like a whistler should. She will feature on Gresley Jn soonish.

 

I also had to renumber her from D211 which was a LMR example. I wanted a pilot scheme loco as they fit my core period best. I was aware that there were some detail differences but not what they were. Clive produced some excellent photos - thanks Clive. It was quite an easy conversion as part of it was to not fit the front ladders from the detailing pack! I also had to remove some small grab rails off the bonnet and fill the holes. I’ve chosen D206 after a picture of her arriving on the Master Cutler at KX in the Ford Pullman book.

 

She still needs weathering but that will have to wait for warmer weather as I use my airbrush outside.

 

Andy

 

 

[Tony Teague]

17 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Ive also been sorting out this EE Type 4 with some help from Clive Mortimore of this parish.

It’s a Bachmann D211 from about 5-6 years ago but has never worked properly. It’s been back to the Bachmann service department once and worked briefly but then got thrown back in the too difficult pile. It has a rather strange split axle pick up system which is covered in pink grease and does seem to have caused a lot of people problems. 

 

Anyway, I dug it out again a couple of weeks ago thinking I would fit some extra pick ups but found the sound decoder had completely failed - I think that it may have been part of the problem all along. I substituted a non sound decoder with stay alive and it ran perfectly - stay alive is definitely one of the advantages of DCC. So Ive now ordered and fitted a Youchoos Zimo sound decoder with stayalive and she works well and sounds like a whistler should. She will feature on Gresley Jn soonish.

 

I also had to renumber her from D211 which was a LMR example. I wanted a pilot scheme loco as they fit my core period best. I was aware that there were some detail differences but not what they were. Clive produced some excellent photos - thanks Clive. It was quite an easy conversion as part of it was to not fit the front ladders from the detailing pack! I also had to remove some small grab rails off the bonnet and fill the holes. I’ve chosen D206 after a picture of her arriving on the Master Cutler at KX in the Ford Pullman book.

 

She still needs weathering but that will have to wait for warmer weather as I use my airbrush outside.

 

Andy

 

 

 

Andy

 

May surprise you to know that, being a Southern boy, and a steam one at that, I too have a slight weakness for the first iteration of diesels; I actually had a blue era diesel traction layout many years ago (don't tell anyone), but disposed of all of the stock following a house move.

D206 looks particularly fine in BR green.

Tony

[thegreenhowards]

1 hour ago, Tony Teague said:

 

Andy

 

May surprise you to know that, being a Southern boy, and a steam one at that, I too have a slight weakness for the first iteration of diesels; I actually had a blue era diesel traction layout many years ago (don't tell anyone), but disposed of all of the stock following a house move.

D206 looks particularly fine in BR green.

Tony

Thanks Tony,

 

That’s a secret you hadn’t let out before! You have the advantage of remembering real steam in action. I was only three when steam finished on the Southern and have no recollection of ever seeing it. I grew up with BR blue diesels and Deltics were my first love with Class 40s taking over when the Deltics finished and then 37s and Cromptons. I’m still hoping to squeeze a Crompton into Gresley Jn one day on the Cliffs -Uddingstone cement.

 

I too had a BR blue layout as a kid. I persuaded my dad to convert our loft (he was very good to me on the model railway front despite having no interest himself) and had a 30’x11’ model of Peterborough North set in the late ‘70s. It never got much past bare baseboards but I loved running the trains.

 

Gresley Jn was set in the late ‘50s so I could run steam and diesel, but I have to say I’m gradually drifting backwards as I get more interested in the rolling stock. I’m going for a late 20’s/ early ‘30s period for my O gauge stock.

 

Andy

 

[Tony Teague]

Andy

I don't remember steam in action as much as I would like, or as much as others of my extreme age and fragility!

I was born in a house in 'Sarf' London that backed on to the Brighton main line but we moved away when I was four, so I only have vague recollections of the steam freights slogging past - the passenger trains were of course electrified soon after my father was born!

My father also had an Austin 7 so when we went on holiday I was denied the opportunity of riding on the ACE or other exotic Southern Trains, however I went to school by train from age 11 and whilst again, the passenger trains were electric, that is when I did see more steam freight, and that period is fresher in my memory.

I think the interest in blue diesels comes form a later period when I used to go on various shed bashing expeditions with a couple of friends, or as a member of RCTS.

Tony

[thegreenhowards]

I’ve also been trying to finish off my D.190 CK to complete my early ‘50s steel 5-set. It’s not been the smoothest journey(!) as I dropped it once meaning some rework and the painting has been a trial. But I’ve gone as far as I  intend to go for now, so for the record, here it is.

 

I think the teak paint colour is too dark. I used Precision Paints ‘Golden Teak’ but I won’t be using it again (except for interiors where I think it works well). For the centre line tried the Headstock And ‘Jweallans’ approaches - one on each side. The compartment side is the ‘Headstock’ approach of masking and painting a black line. This gives an impression of weathering on the non existent beading rather like the Banks photo we were looking at. The corridor side is the scoring approach which is hardly noticeable. I don’t think either are great (in my hands - I’m sure they can be made to work by some people).

 

Overall, I’ve decided that ersatz teak is for more skilled artists than me. I will stick to wooden carriages where the beading can guide me. I think this carriage can run like this for a while but I may paint it crimson/ cream in due course. At the moment it gives me the chance to run my steel 5 set in three guises.

 

1. An early ‘50s look.

 

2. A mid ‘50s look with a Thompson CK as replaced the D.190 for a while.

 

3. A late ‘50s look with maroon Mk1 and Stanier 50ft BG (as often seemed to be attached to these rakes).

 

[thegreenhowards]

The main project I’ve been working on for the last few weeks is an Ian Kirk D.105/125 T/BT articulated twin (that’s a mouthful!). It’s now approaching the home straight.

 

The sides and roof are just about finished. The roof is staying white for now as I haven’t got a layout to run it on yet, so it can stay ex-works!

 

It is built in the normal Kirk modular style with lots of bits making up each side.

 

 

The instructions suggested painting and glazing the sides before Assembly, so that’s what I did. It’s easier to fit the glazing (which fits into recesses on the inside) with the sides separate so it probably makes sense. I then applied teaking in what I call the @jwealleans style, picking out individual panels in different colours and then applying an overall wash. I think this is my best attempt yet so I hope Jonathan doesn’t mind me naming it after him!

 

 

I have a couple of questions if anyone can help me. The first is the underframe. I’ve followed the diagrams and photos I have as best as I can but can anyone see anything I’ve missed. I obviously need stepboard, but they will be applied after painting the solebar in teak.

 

 

The second question involves smoking. The diagrams show these twins as all ‘smoking’. That seems strange but just about possible as they originally ran in eight coach sets of four twins, so I suppose the no smoking might have been in other vehicles. However, I intend to run this in a 3 or 5 car set and would like to include some ‘smoking prohibited’ compartments to add variety ...and because I don’t have enough of the smoking rectangle decals to do them all as smoking! Can anyone find an excuse for me to label some compartments up as ‘Smoking Prohibited’?

 

Andy

 

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by thegreenhowards
Typo

[Headstock]

19 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

The main project I’ve been working on for the last few weeks is an Ian Kirk D.105/125 T/BT articulated twin (that’s a mouthful!). It’s now approaching the home straight.

 

The sides and roof are just about finished. The roof is staying white for now as I haven’t got a layout to run it on yet, so it can stay ex-works!

 

It is built in the normal Kirk modular style with lots of bits making up each side.

 

 

The instructions suggested painting and glazing the sides before Assembly, so that’s what I did. It’s easier to fit the glazing (which fits into recesses on the inside) with the sides separate so it probably makes sense. I then applied teaking in what I call the @jwealleans style, picking out individual panels in different colours and then applying an overall wash. I think this is my best attempt yet so I hope Jonathan doesn’t mind me naming it after him!

 

 

I have a couple of questions if anyone can help me. The first is the underframe. I’ve followed the diagrams and photos I have as best as I can but can anyone see anything I’ve missed. I obviously need stepboard, but they will be applied after painting the solebar in teak.

 

 

The second question involves smoking. The diagrams show these twins as all ‘smoking’. That seems strange but just about possible as they originally ran in eight coach sets of four twins, so I suppose the no smoking might have been in other vehicles. However, I intend to run this in a 3 or 5 car set and would like to include some ‘smoking prohibited’ compartments to add variety ...and because I don’t have enough of the smoking rectangle decals to do them all as smoking! Can anyone find an excuse for me to label some compartments up as ‘Smoking Prohibited’?

 

Andy

 

 

 

Good Afternoon Andy,

 

you need a dynamo on the BT and the battery boxes could do with setting back about a foot from the outside face of the solebar. The LMS positioned the battery boxes as you have it, because they were partly supported by the outside angle iron. The LNER battery boxes had their own independent support system.

 

On the subject of missing bits of underframe gubbins, I am reminded that your Buffet car had gas cooking back in the day, it should have a flipping big gas cylinder slung underneath somewhere.

 

It's a shame about your little compo but there is a great deal of merit in trying new things, even if they don't always come out as intended. Often more can be learned from setbacks  than than instant success. The effect your after is worth persevering with in my opinion, the teak effect on the twin works pretty well. 

 

Talking of a mouthful of descriptions with articulated twins, it occurs to me to just drop the articulated bit. As far as I'm aware, non articulated twins were not a big thing on the LNER. Didn't the LNER drop the double dia. number at some stage, I forget?

[thegreenhowards]

19 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good Afternoon Andy,

 

you need a dynamo on the BT and the battery boxes could do with setting back about a foot from the outside face of the solebar. The LMS positioned the battery boxes as you have it, because they were partly supported by the outside angle iron. The LNER battery boxes had their own independent support system.

How could I have forgotten the dynamo! It’s sitting in the box staring at me! I’ll have a another go at the battery boxes - I’m sure you’ve told me that before - sorry!

 

19 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

On the subject of missing bits of underframe gubbins, I am reminded that your Buffet car had gas cooking back in the day, it should have a flipping big gas cylinder slung underneath somewhere.

It is there.

 

Just not readily visible from the angles I took the previous photos. I possibly should have slung it a bit lower.

 

19 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

It's a shame about your little compo but there is a great deal of merit in trying new things, even if they don't always come out as intended. Often more can be learned from setbacks  than than instant success. The effect your after is worth persevering with in my opinion, the teak effect on the twin works pretty well. 

Thanks. I have plenty of setbacks so should be very learned by now! I’m no artist, so I’ve decided Ersatz teak is for other people. I’ll stick to panelled coaches where I have a ridge to follow.

19 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Talking of a mouthful of descriptions with articulated twins, it occurs to me to just drop the articulated bit. As far as I'm aware, non articulated twins were not a big thing on the LNER. Didn't the LNER drop the double dia. number at some stage, I forget?

You’re probably right about dropping ‘articulated’ although I guess there are non articulated twins or triplets like a Thompson dining triplet (RSO/RK/RTO). You’re right about dropping the double diagram number like your favourite D.210. I think the change was early to mid ‘30s. Some of the 51ft twins were renumbered - for example the F/T became D.242 but I’m not sure about my one.

 

 

[jwealleans]

Yours retained the double numbering I believe, Andy.  I looked at the diagram book last night as I was curious about the smoking/non-smoking idea.  Even for the lethal 1930s, not having any non-smoking provision in a pair of carriages seems extreme. 

 

That teak has turned out very nicely indeed - reminiscent of the pictures of the D210 on Steve Banks' website.   I'd be well pleased with that.  I hope there's a plaque with my name on it somewhere if it's named after me.

[Headstock]

3 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

How could I have forgotten the dynamo! It’s sitting in the box staring at me! I’ll have a another go at the battery boxes - I’m sure you’ve told me that before - sorry!

 

It is there.

 

Just not readily visible from the angles I took the previous photos. I possibly should have slung it a bit lower.

 

Thanks. I have plenty of setbacks so should be very learned by now! I’m no artist, so I’ve decided Ersatz teak is for other people. I’ll stick to panelled coaches where I have a ridge to follow.

You’re probably right about dropping ‘articulated’ although I guess there are non articulated twins or triplets like a Thompson dining triplet (RSO/RK/RTO). You’re right about dropping the double diagram number like your favourite D.210. I think the change was early to mid ‘30s. Some of the 51ft twins were renumbered - for example the F/T became D.242 but I’m not sure about my one.

 

 

 

Late afternoon Andy,

 

The gas cylinder was quite a hefty bit of kit, I suspect a larger diameter than yours and most of it on show!

 

When painting teak on steel sided carriages, the masking tape is your ridge.

 

The telegraph codes/CWN's kept it short and simple when it comes to articulated stock. The vehicles are simply prefixed by twin, Triplet, Quad or Quint. For example Twin FO-FO etc.

 

Thompson dining triplet what? That's not a real thing! 

 

Looking through my electron micro whatsit (is that a real thing?) at dia. thingy thingy. The photo that I was looking at, has rectangular smoking signs in the right hand quarterlight of the compartments.

[Headstock]

8 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

You’re right about dropping the double diagram number like your favourite D.210.

 

Evening Andy,

 

Dia. 210 would not have been my first choice, as regards the formations of ordinary passenger trains running south of Leicester, they were good looking carriages though. If the non-gangway Gresley's, were very much in the tradition of the NER non-gangway stock, the longer twins, were spiritually the offspring of the big handsome GN non-gangway carriages.  

 

Only one-third of the ordinary passenger trains working south of Leicester were non-gangway sets and the twin set ( 2 twins and a GC T, the GC carriage was dropped in the 50s) was not the most typical of non-gangway sets on the workings. They worked one Sunday's only service in the 40s and one daily out and back working in the 50s. I inherited the train and the kits from someone else, who favoured the special over the typical but who failed to launch a build. Having built two gangway sets and an example of the more typical non-gangway sets, I felt that a place could be made for its inclusion and I hate to see promises go unfulfilled.

 

Favourite's? It almost didn't make it. I've only built three twins and two of those have been 210s. It was still more important to me to get one of the ex GC BT(7) five sets up and running. Not as glamorous as the twins but more typical. However, I can always find a place for the less common, as long as it was present and if I have the typical covered, it helps if the kit is a winner.

 

That said, I suppose it's all pretty glamorous stuff, as is your thread, if you are solely reliant on RTR.

[thegreenhowards]

20 hours ago, jwealleans said:

Yours retained the double numbering I believe, Andy.  I looked at the diagram book last night as I was curious about the smoking/non-smoking idea.  Even for the lethal 1930s, not having any non-smoking provision in a pair of carriages seems extreme. 

I've been doing some more research on the smoking compartments. Looking at the diagrams, no smoking compartments were pretty rare - not quite as rare as women only compartments but definitely the exception rather than the rule which seems very strange in our times. Having no such cpts in this twin seems strange but they were built to run in 8 car (I think) formations in the peaks in and out of KX. There were five different twins built so I'm not sure exactly which ones formed a typical train but let's assume it was:

BT-T; T-T; T-F; CL-BT 

 

Of these, the BT-T (my twin) was all smoking, the T-T had one coach of smoking and one of no smoking, the T-F had three no-smoking cpts in the First and was all no smoking in the Third and the CL-BT had one no-smoking cpt in the First.

 

I don't have room for eight coaches, so my train will be BT-T; T-F (not yet built); BT. With the no-smoking provision in the T-F (and two cpts in the BT), I think the train will be balanced overall (for its era), so I will stick with all smoking in the BT-T. That means another order for John Peck's decals!

 

20 hours ago, jwealleans said:

That teak has turned out very nicely indeed - reminiscent of the pictures of the D210 on Steve Banks' website.   I'd be well pleased with that.  I hope there's a plaque with my name on it somewhere if it's named after me.

Thanks. I'm afraid you only get a virtual plaque - i.e. a mention on here!

 

Andy

[thegreenhowards]

I’m making a determined attempt to finish off a number of projects which have been hanging around for far too long as I have been threatened with an eviction notice from the dining room table before Xmas! It currently looks like this, so plenty of tidying to do!

 

 

Today, I have finished another buffet car. This time a tourist buffet in crimson and cream livery. This is one of the batch of Mailcoach kits I bought from eBay over a year ago with dodgy paintwork. I’ve previously turned out a twin TO and I have a BTO on the go but at a much less advanced stage. 

 

 

The underframe is Comet battery boxes as these vehicles used single ones and a cut down Kirk for the little box with MJT for the rest.

 

The roof has two funny vents next to the standard LNER rectangular monsoon vent. I can’t work out from photos what they looked like and every model I have seen seems to have a different take on them. I have modelled two pointy cylinders like the GNR buffet had. If anyone can confirm or correct this I would be grateful.

 

 

Andy

[thegreenhowards]

Another project finished today. Modelmaster had their predicted Black Friday sale and I picked up some Green Arrow plates, so hopefully Headstock will be happy that I have the correct valve gear guide/ tender/ loco combo now.

 

 

 

She still needs weathering but that will have to wait for the spring as I do that outside. As she’s a pampered loco it will be a very light weathering.

 

 

 

 

[jrg1]

On 09/12/2020 at 04:28, thegreenhowards said:

The main project I’ve been working on for the last few weeks is an Ian Kirk D.105/125 T/BT articulated twin (that’s a mouthful!). It’s now approaching the home straight.

 

The sides and roof are just about finished. The roof is staying white for now as I haven’t got a layout to run it on yet, so it can stay ex-works!

 

It is built in the normal Kirk modular style with lots of bits making up each side.

 

 

The instructions suggested painting and glazing the sides before Assembly, so that’s what I did. It’s easier to fit the glazing (which fits into recesses on the inside) with the sides separate so it probably makes sense. I then applied teaking in what I call the @jwealleans style, picking out individual panels in different colours and then applying an overall wash. I think this is my best attempt yet so I hope Jonathan doesn’t mind me naming it after him!

 

 

I have a couple of questions if anyone can help me. The first is the underframe. I’ve followed the diagrams and photos I have as best as I can but can anyone see anything I’ve missed. I obviously need stepboard, but they will be applied after painting the solebar in teak.

 

 

The second question involves smoking. The diagrams show these twins as all ‘smoking’. That seems strange but just about possible as they originally ran in eight coach sets of four twins, so I suppose the no smoking might have been in other vehicles. However, I intend to run this in a 3 or 5 car set and would like to include some ‘smoking prohibited’ compartments to add variety ...and because I don’t have enough of the smoking rectangle decals to do them all as smoking! Can anyone find an excuse for me to label some compartments up as ‘Smoking Prohibited’?

 

Andy

 

 

Can you advise who supplied the sprung buffers, please? 

[thegreenhowards]

5 hours ago, jrg1 said:

Can you advise who supplied the sprung buffers, please? 

They’re NMRS. Are you asking because you like them or because they’re wrong? I’ve since lost a spring in one, do you know whether spare springs are available?

[thegreenhowards]

DavidW of this parish has been asking me some questions about the Gresley BSK which appeared on my Gresley Jn thread yesterday. Rather than answer him by PM I thought I’d put the answer on here in case anyone else is interested in the ‘bodger’s’ way to do a Mousa/ Hornby Gresley donor conversion.

 

This is the BSK in question.

 

It is a Gresley LNER D.37A formed from Mousa brass sides on a Hornby donor. David’s particular question was how I formed the tumblehome (or turnunder for the purists).

 

It is well known that the Hornby Gresleys are too fat and have insufficient curve at the bottom of the sides. The whole floorpan is too wide which makes a perfect conversion quite tricky. I think some people have cut the floorpan down the middle, removed some material and glued it back together, but that’s far too much like hard work for me and I’m not sure how string the resulting floorpan would be.

 

Essentially I cheat on this. I take the view treat the important thing is to have some curve at the bottom of the ends. So I curve the sides to the correct profile by rolling them over my trusted beach spade handle and comparing it with 247 white metal ends. I then remove the complete Hornby side and file a little off the bottom of the Hornby end just in the corners. Then I glue the sides on. At this point there is a gap between the sides and the ends around the waistline. I sort this out by filling the gap, sanding it smooth and painting it black. The sides also curve out slightly along the length but this is not really noticeable. The end result is a coach with the correct end profile. It is about 1mm too wide overall but that is not really evident as I hope these photos show.

 

Finally I solder strengthening strips of brass horizontally across the sides At the base which provide some strength and attachment points for the floorpan.

 

 

 

I hope that answers your question David. 

 

Andy

 

 

Edited December 17, 2020 by thegreenhowards

[davidw]

It does. I have done some MJT RF, RK and TO. I know TW used bending bars. Personally I've used an isinglass drawing. Never really been happy with the results. I like the idea of using white metal ends and subsequent bracing....

Thanks more in the to do pile practice makes perfect!

Edited December 17, 2020 by davidw

[thegreenhowards]

2 hours ago, davidw said:

It does. I have done some MJT RF, RK and TO. I know TW used bending bars. Personally I've used an isinglass drawing. Never really been happy with the results. I like the idea of using white metal ends and subsequent bracing....

Thanks more in the to do pile practice makes perfect!

Practice definitely helps with these. I think you build up your own way of doing them and it becomes routine.
 

MJT are more time consuming than Mousa because of all the soldering in the panels. But the end result is probably better.  Their customer service is definitely better too - I find Bill quite fierce! I’ve only done two MJT - a RF and a SO. Lovely kits to build provided you have the patience.

[davidw]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

Practice definitely helps with these. I think you build up your own way of doing them and it becomes routine.
 

MJT are more time consuming than Mousa because of all the soldering in the panels. But the end result is probably better.  Their customer service is definitely better too - I find Bill quite fierce! I’ve only done two MJT - a RF and a SO. Lovely kits to build provided you have the patience.

It's the RF and TO/SO I've done- as and the RK. I may  redo them in due course.

[jrg1]

On 17/12/2020 at 19:35, thegreenhowards said:

They’re NMRS. Are you asking because you like them or because they’re wrong? I’ve since lost a spring in one, do you know whether spare springs are available?

Thanks-I like to finish off models with decent sprung buffers and am always on the lookout for suppliers.  I assume that they are wrong as the base is rectangular, instead of round-but they still look far superior to cast W/M.

Try Kadee coupling springs.

[thegreenhowards]

9 hours ago, jrg1 said:

Thanks-I like to finish off models with decent sprung buffers and am always on the lookout for suppliers.  I assume that they are wrong as the base is rectangular, instead of round-but they still look far superior to cast W/M.

Try Kadee coupling springs.

John,

 

What makes you say that they should have round bases? I don't have an end on picture of this twin, but the pictures of Gresley non corridor stock all have square bases.

 

By the way this model is in 0 gauge - I hope that was clear. NMRS don't do '00' if that's what you were looking for.

 

Andy