Jump to content

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, davidw said:

I almost went for that. But I'd have had to do a full repaint to BR green.

I actually thought it was BR Green as I asked the vender and he said he thought it was a very dirty green. In the photos, the tender looked black, but the loco looked dirty green...at least to my eyes. It wouldn’t be worth repainting as the finish on the loco is one of the best bits. Either colour suits me, although it’s annoying that I have to replace the emblem which may be difficult without spoiling the paint finish.

 

There is a photo online which seems to show the loco in black within the late emblem which may be what the original painter based it on: https://images.app.goo.gl/h4STduS7yCEaFanP7. I assume this is in fact a dirty green.

 

Andy

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jwealleans said:

Is the joint in the running plate where it curves down at the front starting to fail, Andy?

Thanks for pointing that out. I’ve had a ‘prod’ and it seems secure. So I think a dab of araldite or filler is all that’s required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jwealleans said:

Is the joint in the running plate where it curves down at the front starting to fail, Andy?

Thanks for pointing that out. I’ve had a ‘prod’ and it seems secure. So I think a dab of araldite or filler is all that’s required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving back a few projects, I’ve now completed my rake of empty mineral wagons. I went for painting the insides in the same colour as the body (i.e. grey or in one case bauxite). I then gave a wash of Railmatch weathered black, some soot and rust (metal wagons only) weathering powders and some coal dust in the corners. I think I’ve ended up with a homogeneous and realistic set of wagons but comments would be welcome.

 

370D09C4-4B14-4ACD-B04C-6B845D34A6B4.jpeg.4a635b0220921461825f4a812b581349.jpeg

 

They form the first 18 wagons of my 39 wagon empty mineral rake. The remainder is formed up in the fiddle yard from some wagons off the gaz trip and a few which had already had a similar treatment. 39 wagons is probably not much more than half the correct length, but it’s all that will fit In the fiddle yard without some redesign and it looks a respectable length.

 

F1E9129B-3BEC-4FA3-8A88-BE9959A1A9BE.jpeg.4a3d1f5250bf2176c6c002b7eb5fed28.jpeg

 

I’ll post a video on my Gresley Jn thread in due course, but my iPhone which takes the videos is broken, so that will have to wait.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wagons look nice and grotty to me!

 

I needed some coach bits from Comet and sent in an order yesterday. Included were two pairs of brass sides for Thompson coaches, with rounded corner windows, all on the strength of this thread!

 

John.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, John Tomlinson said:

Wagons look nice and grotty to me!

 

I needed some coach bits from Comet and sent in an order yesterday. Included were two pairs of brass sides for Thompson coaches, with rounded corner windows, all on the strength of this thread!

 

John.

That’s good to hear John. Let us Know how you get on with the Comet sides.

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another project completed today with these six ex LNER fish vans bought from eBay ready built but unpainted. They’ve just left the weathering shop.

 

9707EB33-58B2-47A4-810D-A5123CAFCF98.jpeg.f249e7b67743bdb0685318303b60879d.jpeg
 

They can be seen in action on my Gresley Jn Thread here https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/149386-gresley-junction/&do=findComment&comment=4004608.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The V2 I showed a few days ago has now been fixed and commissioned. The valve gear went back together easily and I’ve added the detailing bits that were obviously missing (apart from the brakes which will be difficult on this chassis, so I’m inclined not to bother).

502E2FE7-6AE7-4426-8CB5-5715D4A673FD.jpeg.2a6874c792f0f4c55aa497e2701404c1.jpegF9575577-46D2-45CE-8F8B-7C3DD8042EFE.jpeg.1aa3297a307c10dffbd48a78fa4c113a.jpeg

 

The tender weathering where I had the change the logos looks rather stark under the bright light, but looks fine under normal viewing. I might try to time it down slightly though having seen these photos.

 

I had assumed the chassis was the original Nucast so called ‘lump’. But I discussed it with Gilbert and he said it didn’t look like the ‘lumps’ he remembered. Does anyone know the origin of this?

 

06DA41B8-AAC5-4F9F-9D38-E1239C7BA69A.jpeg.0b5559e756959b05b588606c129c8aa6.jpeg7EAB0447-093B-4101-A602-7EC7FD4F1635.jpeg.51fa6aec3505ce3865dd7a2d36296c4a.jpeg


It seems to run OK whatever it is. A little noisy, but excellent pick ups with no hesitation even over my dreaded insulfrog slips.

 

Andy

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/03/2020 at 08:29, thegreenhowards said:

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

Intrigued by the various Sleepers modeled on this thread, about which I knew next to nothing, I recently picked up on ebay a couple of the Hornby Gresley dia.17's in maroon at a decent price. Having been very wary of the Hornby Gresleys on their arrival - I bought a Buffet Car to fiddle with and that was it - these two are ref. R4570 and have the corrected side panelling which I'm bound to say does a lot to make them look better at a normal viewing distance.

 

I did wonder as well if Coopercraft still have for sale some of the sides that you've used so convincingly on a wide range of vehicles. Last time I saw him at a Show a while back he had a good range of parts, but no complete kits or roofs. The roofs of course are available from Comet. As we know "Caveat Emptor" seems to apply in spades in dealing with Coopercraft, but I might do an investigation and if I have any joy I'll report back.

 

Recent weeks have been spent making some Kirk 51ft's, a DC Kits Mk1 Suburban SLO, a Southern Pride "Hadrians Bar", and upgrading an old Hornby Railroad Pullman Parlour Car, all now ready for the paint shop. I loathe painting but it will have to be done!

 

John.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John,

 

I personally believe that the modern Hornby Gresleys are much better than their detractors suggest. They are clearly too fat at the solebar level with insufficient tumblehome but other than that I think they’re pretty good. The end, roof and underframe detailing and standard of finish are well ahead of what I generally achieve. I assume you have the modern D.17s rather than the old ‘shortie’ version?

 

I suspect Coopercraft Is now history. By all means try him - but phone rather than use the website and be prepared to follow up with nagging phone calls every week or so! The sleepers do come up from time to time on eBay, so keep an eye out there as well. Bear in mind that for most sleepers, you need a 65ft floorplan, so you may as well use Plasticard or copper clad paxolin for that anyway. The latter is good because one can then solder MJT underframe detail to the base. And for the roof I tend to just the MJT aluminium/ white metal approach rather than the plastic Kirk or Comet version.

 

Regards

 

Andy

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Hi John,

 

I personally believe that the modern Hornby Gresleys are much better than their detractors suggest. They are clearly too fat at the solebar level with insufficient tumblehome but other than that I think they’re pretty good. The end, roof and underframe detailing and standard of finish are well ahead of what I generally achieve. I assume you have the modern D.17s rather than the old ‘shortie’ version?

 

I suspect Coopercraft Is now history. By all means try him - but phone rather than use the website and be prepared to follow up with nagging phone calls every week or so! The sleepers do come up from time to time on eBay, so keep an eye out there as well. Bear in mind that for most sleepers, you need a 65ft floorplan, so you may as well use Plasticard or copper clad paxolin for that anyway. The latter is good because one can then solder MJT underframe detail to the base. And for the roof I tend to just the MJT aluminium/ white metal approach rather than the plastic Kirk or Comet version.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Good Afternoon John,

 

There are many other inaccuracies with the body shape that you haven't mentioned. Below the body, nothing is an accurate dimension except the overall length and the buffer housings. Even the vac cylinders, dynamo and battery boxes are the wrong size. They are without peer the most inaccurate RTR carriages ever produced by a manufacturer in the modern era. A triumph of finish and detail over accuracy. They are unbelievably expensive for such poor models, a rip off of the highest order. I think modelers shouldn't except the poor quality they represent. They are a poor choice of prototypes, that makes it impossible for the average modeler to assemble a realistic formation. 2/10, because the bogies are good and they can be butchered into something better. Much Support the non gangway stock, in contrast, they are great.

Edited by Headstock
housing and peers not piers, dumb head
  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I thought you might rise to the bait Andrew! I certainly agree with you that they chose a poor selection of prototypes.
 

They are now best part of 20 years old so questionable whether they are of the ‘modern era’. I would certainly welcome a new range but I’ll live with them when I need one of the limited number of prototypes they represent.

 

Andy

Edited by thegreenhowards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

I thought you might rise to the bait Andrew! I certainly agree with you that they chose a poor selection of prototypes.
 

They are now best part of 20 years old so questionable whether they are of the ‘modern era’. I would certainly welcome a new range but I’ll live with them when I need one of the limited number of prototypes they represent.

 

Andy

 

Snapped off!

 

tis my mission that evil Hornby, will eventually admit their foolish twenty year error, retool the whole range and then give everybody their money back. It will never happen, as long as you in particular, keep living with them. Is that a sin? It will only encourage Hornby to try flogging seven wheel versions, with gable roofs, five buffers and revolving doors. Think of all the poor pensioners spending their last gas money, convinced, thanks to Hornby, that HNG designed rather ugly looking coaches rather than gorgeous, sexy carriages.

 

P.S. I rather enjoyed your moving images of trains the other evening, I think that you may need something a wee bit longer though.

Edited by Headstock
sexy and longer trains.
  • Like 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Andrew (Headstock) - I read your most recent post just before going to bed last night and it really made me laugh. I'm afraid Hornby get very little dosh from me as nearly all my purchases in recent years have been off ebay (usually pre-owned "as new"), with a few "sale" items from the box-shifters when they have real bargains. I'll be a pensioner in under two years - if they don't change the rules again - and looking at the amount of stuff already in cupboards they'll get even less from me then!

 

To Andy (Coulsdon) - thanks for the advice. I've now only got one Hornby dia.17 (the latest range) as the second one I bought hasn't materialised and the vendor gave me a full refund. I decided to kill two birds with one stone, and I've ordered the Isinglass dia.109 sleeper third, quite a common vehicle I think and also a chance to have a pop for the first time at this new product range. I really liked your Steel panelled twin from this source, never mind the roof, and thought it looked great. So we'll see how a 3D print of something teak bodied turns out.

 

John.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, John Tomlinson said:

To Andrew (Headstock) - I read your most recent post just before going to bed last night and it really made me laugh. I'm afraid Hornby get very little dosh from me as nearly all my purchases in recent years have been off ebay (usually pre-owned "as new"), with a few "sale" items from the box-shifters when they have real bargains. I'll be a pensioner in under two years - if they don't change the rules again - and looking at the amount of stuff already in cupboards they'll get even less from me then!

 

To Andy (Coulsdon) - thanks for the advice. I've now only got one Hornby dia.17 (the latest range) as the second one I bought hasn't materialised and the vendor gave me a full refund. I decided to kill two birds with one stone, and I've ordered the Isinglass dia.109 sleeper third, quite a common vehicle I think and also a chance to have a pop for the first time at this new product range. I really liked your Steel panelled twin from this source, never mind the roof, and thought it looked great. So we'll see how a 3D print of something teak bodied turns out.

 

John.

 

Good evening John,

 

I'm sure that if Andy was to present his UFO* twin to Hornby, I think it quite likely they would offer him a job. Provided he made the production version a wee bit fatter.

 

*Unidentified Flippin Open.

 

P.S. looking after the gas man, very wise.

Edited by Headstock
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening John,

 

I'm sure that if Andy was to present his UFO* twin to Hornby, I think it quite likely they would offer him a job. Provided he made the production version a wee bit fatter.

 

*Unidentified Flippin Open.

 

P.S. looking after the gas man, very wise.

What do you mean unidentified? It’s not my fault that Doncaster couldn’t follow instructions!

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a white metal chassis on the V2 Andy? I remember the Nu Cast kit I had in 1977 ish came with one. I did manage to get it working somehow!

 

Regards

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dibateg said:

Is it a white metal chassis on the V2 Andy? I remember the Nu Cast kit I had in 1977 ish came with one. I did manage to get it working somehow!

 

Regards

Tony

Hi Tony,

 

It’s either white metal or that metal that Triang-Hornby used for their chassis In the ‘70s and ‘80s. The sides are about 1.5-2mm thick. It didn’t run well when I got it, but fixing the valve gear and tweaking the pick ups sorted it out and it runs well now.
 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

What do you mean unidentified? It’s not my fault that Doncaster couldn’t follow instructions!

 

Evening Greenie,

 

Fortunately for prosperity, York, rather than Doncaster, could read instructions and didn't make the same mistake as countless generations of kit manufacturers have done in copying the drawings from the diagramme book. Most of the inaccuracies in Gresley carriages down the years can be traced to that one source. The fictional Kirk roof and end profile is a dead copy of the drawings in the diagram book The over large depth of the windows on Kirk and many brass sides can be traced to the same source. The drawings in the diagram books were only intended as rough sketches, not scale drawings.

 

The Hornby carriages are a little mystifying in this regard, as they don't match up to anything, It's almost as if they took a GA and then altered all the principal dimensions to produce a carriage equivalent of the pod people, an uncanny valley railway carriage. I think that it would be to the benefit of anybody interested, to construct a full MJT kit of a Gresley carriage. After all these years, they are still currently, the only way to get an accurate model of one of these vehicles. Anybody interested would learn so much about the real carriages from the process, as the dimensions are on the money. The knowledge gained would be applicable to any other LNER carriage modeling project.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Andrew ( Headstock) about the MJT kits - they are accurate and they did teach me a lot about Gresley coaches. All of that learning has been useful in other coach builds from other kit manufacturers.

 

The Hornby Gresleys are so frustrating because they are so nearly very good ( in my opinion). The problem, for me, is the slab sided look and the incorrect beading position. Oh, and the choice of prototypes. And the teak paint on some of the batches. I have never got past those issues to actually compare them to a drawing.

 

I have considered re- siding the couple that I do have, but it looks like a fairly major job to me.... so they’ll probably get sold and that will pay for an MJT kit.........well may be half of the kit. That is the problem - the MJT kit will cost around £80 when all the bits are bought.

 

I enjoy making the kits and will continue to do so. But they are not cheap....

 

Sorry Andy, for butting into your thread, but I do find coaches interesting and it is a real shame that the manufacturers don’t get more of them correct.

 

Jon

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Jon4470 said:

I agree with Andrew ( Headstock) about the MJT kits - they are accurate and they did teach me a lot about Gresley coaches. All of that learning has been useful in other coach builds from other kit manufacturers.

 

The Hornby Gresleys are so frustrating because they are so nearly very good ( in my opinion). The problem, for me, is the slab sided look and the incorrect beading position. Oh, and the choice of prototypes. And the teak paint on some of the batches. I have never got past those issues to actually compare them to a drawing.

 

I have considered re- siding the couple that I do have, but it looks like a fairly major job to me.... so they’ll probably get sold and that will pay for an MJT kit.........well may be half of the kit. That is the problem - the MJT kit will cost around £80 when all the bits are bought.

 

I enjoy making the kits and will continue to do so. But they are not cheap....

 

Sorry Andy, for butting into your thread, but I do find coaches interesting and it is a real shame that the manufacturers don’t get more of them correct.

 

Jon

 

 

Good morning Jon,

 

The slab sidedness may be the most obvious feature of the fat Gresleys. However, they get far worse down below. It is these underpinnings that are at the route of the problem with the slab sided body. The solebars are too deep and far too widely spread apart. They are about three or four mil wider than any other RTR carriage, or on the real thing. If the body profile was to be corrected, thus made narrower at the floor, the solebars would stick out wider than the body that that they support. This would give the effect reminiscent of a loaf of bread perched on a skateboard! At present, the solebars are almost flush with the slab sides, they should be set back, giving the body a distinct overhang. This is a major contributor to the fat pear shaped look of the model. In order to correct the body profile, it would require the scrapping and retooling of the underframe as both are too wide.


One resulting bodge caused by the solebars being too wide, is that the stepboards are reduced to skinny little sticks, almost flush with the side. You can sit quite comfortably on the real thing, you would be lucky to get a toe hold on the model version without slipping off. Another bodge is that the buffer beam has had to be stretched to incorporate the wide solebars, this makes the carriages look even fatter.

 
One aspect that reinforces the fat look Gresleys, is Hornby's decision to make the gangways wider than they should be by about two mil and also shortern them by three mil, The cover on the real gangway is flush with the top of the roof, The Hornby gangways are way short of the cornice. Again the impression is of short and fat, rather than tall and imposing. 


Some of this flabby makeover may not be as apparent from the side view, but have no fear,  good old Hornby cocked up this elevation too. The solebars are too deep and chunky and the  Queen posts are to close together, thus, the angle iron is too long and spindly between the queen posts and the solebars. It is correspondingly too short between the left and right hand queen posts. Due to the aforementioned solebar width issue, the cross trussing, like the bufferbeam, is stretched.  


As a result of the reduction in space between the queen posts, the battery boxes are compressed to a smaller size and the V hangers and vac cylinders are now in the wrong place on the underframe. The Queen posts themselves, are no longer in the correct position in relation to the compartment doors on the body. There is a wonderful symmetry to Gresley compartment door carriages that Hornby have well and trully cocked up. It beggars belief that a manufacturer could have got so much wrong.  From what were Hornby working  when these models were designed? It would seem a distorted sketch, drawn from memory, half reflected in a puddle.

Edited by Headstock
add word
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me old fashioned, but I'm beginning to get the impression that those Hornby Gresley's aren't the absolute apex in 4mm coach modelling! :rolleyes:

 

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tony Teague said:

Call me old fashioned, but I'm beginning to get the impression that those Hornby Gresley's aren't the absolute apex in 4mm coach modelling! :rolleyes:

 

 

If your desperate to own a loaf of bread on a skateboard, they are awesome.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

If your desperate to own a loaf of bread on a skateboard, they are awesome.

At least you could eat it!

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Jon4470 said:

I agree with Andrew ( Headstock) about the MJT kits - they are accurate and they did teach me a lot about Gresley coaches. All of that learning has been useful in other coach builds from other kit manufacturers.

 

The Hornby Gresleys are so frustrating because they are so nearly very good ( in my opinion). The problem, for me, is the slab sided look and the incorrect beading position. Oh, and the choice of prototypes. And the teak paint on some of the batches. I have never got past those issues to actually compare them to a drawing.

 

I have considered re- siding the couple that I do have, but it looks like a fairly major job to me.... so they’ll probably get sold and that will pay for an MJT kit.........well may be half of the kit. That is the problem - the MJT kit will cost around £80 when all the bits are bought.

 

I enjoy making the kits and will continue to do so. But they are not cheap....

 

Sorry Andy, for butting into your thread, but I do find coaches interesting and it is a real shame that the manufacturers don’t get more of them correct.

 

Jon

 

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.

A89DECED-3C8D-494A-96E1-F9BC56278CB1.jpeg.2fa4bfb92beb6f1eb5a0f3069e85ceec.jpeg
 

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

5CFCA10C-E453-46AC-B50F-BB8B6D67B3EA.jpeg.1f94d0f3b3af1d65f33a3a54bdcfe76a.jpeg

 

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

  • Like 4
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.