Coulsdon Works

[thegreenhowards]

2 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

Andy, I see that the base has on your Dia.78V has the raised rebate inside to clip the sides to, have you used this feature? I ask as the primer yellow has been very cleanly kept off the base, or is it just careful masking?

 

John.

I do use the rebate, I find its a very simple and useful way of attached the sides to the floor pan. I simply removed the floor pan for painting!

[John Tomlinson]

1 minute ago, thegreenhowards said:

I do use the rebate, I find its a very simple and useful way of attached the sides to the floor pan. I simply removed the floor pan for painting!

Ah now that's interesting. On my kit the sides wouldn't have come out once clipped in, they were held quite firm without glue and there certainly wouldn't have been enough play once the ends were glued to the sides.

 

Sounds like a special subject for Mastermind, "the 3D printed LNER coach kits of Isinglass"!

 

John.

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, John Tomlinson said:

Andrew, in the picture the roof is not fixed. It is still not fixed as the sides are designed to "clip" into a raised rebate inthe base, this keeps them straight and also the base straight and horizontal. The outcome is that you need to glue the roof on after finishing, not my preferred method but as with a bit of fettling I've got it to be a snug push fit, something I'll run with. Thanks for the note about the end overhang being cornice, not roof, as I model BR it will all be gray in any case, rather than an elegant teak line.

 

As I mentioned, the ends have a ledge moulded inside to fit inside the sides and so make a corner joint. Unfortunately this ledge isn't the right shape and needs a bit of work with the file to get it right, but no big deal really to do.

 

I've attached another picture "in the raw" from above which may help a bit.

 

The other thing I'd mention is washing. I did some light sanding on the sides and ends when the kit came, as there were faint - and I mean faint - printing marks. So did this with fine wet and dry used wet, around a very small balsa block. Then washed in kitchen cleaner and rinsed all parts. Did some more work including most of the undergubbins and washed with Cif/ Jif again. Finished to prepare for painting and last Sunday another washing, along with seven other coaches, two Mig 17's and a Bachmann Peak with new etched grilles, this done with latex gloves, so no touching and hopefully the prelude to a successful spraying this week. This might seem OTT, but anything that reduces the risk of failure in finishing is good by me!

 

John.

 

 

Thanks for the information John,

 

In comparison to Andy's Gangway ends, I take it you have filed back the 'ledge' that you mention, in order to get a sharper edge were the ends intersect the sides? The roof  also seems to be a better fit to the ends as a result. 

 

I probably wouldn't use the underframes as supplied, the headstocks don't look right and the solebars lack detail. I'm wondering if the body would fit on an MJT underframe? What is the width across the assembled body, from inside wall to inside wall? If I was to use the underframe, I would remove the clip in bit on the floor, then fit L shaped brackets to the ends, in order to secure the body to the floor, via a nut and bolt. I could then concentrate on getting an invisible and permanent fit of the roof to the body, so that the roof and body are one unit, that detaches from the underframe.

 

I fully approve of your painting regime. A good finish is mostly about, everything that you do before applying the paint.

Edited October 6, 2020 by Headstock
Add ?

[thegreenhowards]

38 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

Ah now that's interesting. On my kit the sides wouldn't have come out once clipped in, they were held quite firm without glue and there certainly wouldn't have been enough play once the ends were glued to the sides.

 

Sounds like a special subject for Mastermind, "the 3D printed LNER coach kits of Isinglass"!

 

John.

They are held ‘quite’ firmly. Indeed so firmly, that I did break a bit off once when removing them in haste. However, I find that with careful easing with a blade along the bottom the sides will clip off easily enough and that is a very quick and easy way of holding the under-frame in place. That means I can attach the roof firmly in situ and still get at the inside later for glazing/ interior detailing etc. which meets Andrew’s concern.

 

I find the simplicity of the underframe and the ease of fitting a big advantage. However if you don't want the underframe, you can buy the sides/ ends /roof kit for £35 instead of £47. The internal measurement side to side is 30mm Ignoring the ridge which slips into the underframe.

 

Andy

 

 

[John Tomlinson]

Andy,

 

Thanks for the gen. on fitting the underframe. I'll try that on my next one!

 

Thanks also for answering Andrew's query about the width.

 

Andrew,

 

Yes, the ledge on the ends that fits against the sides was shaped to give the crisp corner. Not difficult to do. From memory there was probably a bit of rough moulding on the ends of the sides too, soon dressed with a file. I haven't used an MJT underframe, just a fair amount of their bits, but it sounds as if Andy's method with the Isinglass underframe could be a winner.

 

John.

[Headstock]

58 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

Andy,

 

Thanks for the gen. on fitting the underframe. I'll try that on my next one!

 

Thanks also for answering Andrew's query about the width.

 

Andrew,

 

Yes, the ledge on the ends that fits against the sides was shaped to give the crisp corner. Not difficult to do. From memory there was probably a bit of rough moulding on the ends of the sides too, soon dressed with a file. I haven't used an MJT underframe, just a fair amount of their bits, but it sounds as if Andy's method with the Isinglass underframe could be a winner.

 

John.

 

Evening John,

 

no way on that one, the kit is obviously not designed to do that and given the brittleness, too easily damaged. Prising things on and off is asking for trouble, not to mention super lazy modeling. A good solid bracket and a nut and bolt is a proper job.

 

I don't like the shape of the headstock on the Isinglass underframe, it looks nothing like the real thing. It is as if it was produced by someone who had only seen a side on drawing and was unaware of how it looks in three dimensions. It could be replaced I suppose.

 

Colour coded for clarity

 

Blue is the U shaped headstock, notice how it stands out from the sole bar and is also deeper than the solebar. Maroon is the bulb angle, the bottom edge of the solebar. Below that is the underside of the solebar. At the top of the front face of the solebar is the L angle that supports the body of the carriage, also shown in maroon.

 

 

[John Tomlinson]

Andrew,

 

Thanks for posting that very informative picture. I do see now the issue, and hadn't realised before that the headstock was so much deeper than the solebar. I suppose when you think about it, this is completely logical, the headstock being a great and substantial cross piece that ensures all the force in shunting is transfered to the length of the solebars. There's a lot of other useful detail in the shot as well.

 

John.

[Headstock]

5 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

Andrew,

 

Thanks for posting that very informative picture. I do see now the issue, and hadn't realised before that the headstock was so much deeper than the solebar. I suppose when you think about it, this is completely logical, the headstock being a great and substantial cross piece that ensures all the force in shunting is transfered to the length of the solebars. There's a lot of other useful detail in the shot as well.

 

John.

 

John,

 

you even get a free W1. It's a good one for the owners of Hornby Gangway Gresleys. They need to retract their buffers, so that the Buckeyes and Pullman gangways, with their own buffing gear,can be deployed.

[John Tomlinson]

Andrew,

 

Overnight, I had another thought emanating from seeing your picture. Despite carefully positioning the bogies on my coach so that the tops are a mere smidge below the bottom of the solebars, the buffer level is too high, with centres at around 15mm above rail height rather than a touch under 14mm as they shoud be. A mystery as the bogies look and scale well proportioned.

 

I think the explanation is given in the picture. The kit assumes solebars and headstocks are all the same depth, buffers mounted centrally on the latter. However they aren't so in reality, with the shank barely above the bottom ridge of the solebar. If the headstock was the right depth, the buffers could be mounted lower and so closer to reality.

 

Thanks again,

 

John.

[thegreenhowards]

6 hours ago, John Tomlinson said:

Andrew,

 

Overnight, I had another thought emanating from seeing your picture. Despite carefully positioning the bogies on my coach so that the tops are a mere smidge below the bottom of the solebars, the buffer level is too high, with centres at around 15mm above rail height rather than a touch under 14mm as they shoud be. A mystery as the bogies look and scale well proportioned.

 

I think the explanation is given in the picture. The kit assumes solebars and headstocks are all the same depth, buffers mounted centrally on the latter. However they aren't so in reality, with the shank barely above the bottom ridge of the solebar. If the headstock was the right depth, the buffers could be mounted lower and so closer to reality.

 

Thanks again,

 

John.

John,

 

That hadn’t occurred to me until you said it but I see what you mean. My buffers were initially riding about 1.5mm too high. I‘ve done a bit of filing and brought the buffers closer but I now see that the whole vehicle rides too high...or at least a lot higher than the Pullman.  I don’t understand this as it seems to match the drawing pretty well. Any thoughts?

 

 

Andrew’s picture is very useful (Thanks for taking the trouble Andrew - I suppose you should be an expert on Headstocks!) and does show what is wrong with the kit.  I was initially thinking I’d live with it on the basis that it’s only going to be seen side on on the layout and it’s the bit above the sole bar which normally attracts my attention - I’m clearly some way off ‘museum quality’! However this height difference has really got me worried so I’m getting close to putting it in the too difficult box!

 

Andy

Edited October 7, 2020 by thegreenhowards

[37Oban]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

John,

 

That hadn’t occurred to me until you said it but I see what you mean. My buffers were initially riding about 1.5mm too high. I‘ve done a bit of filing and brought the buffers closer but I now see that the whole vehicle rides too high...or at least a lot higher than the Pullman.  I don’t understand this as it seems to match the drawing pretty well. Any thoughts?

 

 

Andrew’s picture is very useful (Thanks for taking the trouble Andrew - I suppose you should be an expert on Headstocks!) and does show what is wrong with the kit.  I was initially thinking I’d live with it on the basis that it’s only going to be seen side on on the layout and it’s the bit above the sole bar which normally attracts my attention - I’m clearly some way off ‘museum quality’! However this height difference has really got me worried so I’m getting close to putting it in the too difficult box!

 

Andy

Looking at the photo there seems to be quite a gap between the bogie and body of the kit coach to the Pullman.  Depending on the radius of the curves on you layout could you not adjust this to lower the ride height?

 

Roja

[John Tomlinson]

Hi Andy,

 

I'm wondering if Roja means the gap on the non Pigeon van and its bogies, rather than the Pullman. That would be my first observation looking at the picture as the solebar looks high compared to that on the Pullman. Doubtless a silly question, but the wheels are the right size I presume?

 

Less helpfully, I wonder if the roof on the van has been lifted by the extra ledge on the end, to which Andrew has referred, I say this as with the yellow primer to heighten contrast there appears to be a gap along the top of the side and the roof. Nothing to be done about this I'd have thought, without risk of major damage.

 

My third observation, and this is on the basis of many trying times spent looking at such issues (!), the track on which the vehicles are placed for the photo isn't flat. This may have caused this end of the van to have risen, and/ or the end of the Pullman to droop. If so it would have accentuated the disparity as it doesn't take much in the way of hills and troughs to show.

 

The dia.109 Sleeping car I've been doing (got a coat of primer today) does run at an overall roof height similar to my Kirk and Hornby Gresleys, and also Bachmann Mk1's, however the buffers are still a tad high. I'll live with it, given the nature of the material I've no intention of trying to remove the headstocks and replace them - per Andrew's picture - that's something to bear in mind for the next one!

 

John.

[John Tomlinson]

Andy,

 

The other thing I'd say, and this is a general point, I do very much share your view that this range has great promise, and I think Andy Edgson is to be thanked by all of us for venturing into the field. As you noted, some of the etched product ranges elsewhere seem to be being withdrawn, and given that there can't be that many people out there interested in building LNER coaches (and less and less as time goes on) as modellers we need all the trade support we can get.

 

It will be good if Andy E. can implement some improvements, when I've finished the coach I'm doing I was going to do a few pictures and write to him with some observations. You've obviously communicated already, and this can only be for the good.

 

John.

[Headstock]

3 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

John,

 

That hadn’t occurred to me until you said it but I see what you mean. My buffers were initially riding about 1.5mm too high. I‘ve done a bit of filing and brought the buffers closer but I now see that the whole vehicle rides too high...or at least a lot higher than the Pullman.  I don’t understand this as it seems to match the drawing pretty well. Any thoughts?

 

 

Andrew’s picture is very useful (Thanks for taking the trouble Andrew - I suppose you should be an expert on Headstocks!) and does show what is wrong with the kit.  I was initially thinking I’d live with it on the basis that it’s only going to be seen side on on the layout and it’s the bit above the sole bar which normally attracts my attention - I’m clearly some way off ‘museum quality’! However this height difference has really got me worried so I’m getting close to putting it in the too difficult box!

 

Andy

 

Evening Andy,

 

The GNR milk van was about 4 inches taller than a Gresley LNER carriage, I don't know about Pullman, without digging out a book, presumably they complied with the ECJS or LNER composite loading gauge. You have probably added at least an inch in height at the cornice, as the roof should sit down more. The gap between the solebar and the Fox bogies looks to be far too big. Perhaps as much as 2 mm or more. Your wheels also look suspiciously like RTR Hornby? If so, they are a little overscale but presumably match the pullman.

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, John Tomlinson said:

Andy,

 

The other thing I'd say, and this is a general point, I do very much share your view that this range has great promise, and I think Andy Edgson is to be thanked by all of us for venturing into the field. As you noted, some of the etched product ranges elsewhere seem to be being withdrawn, and given that there can't be that many people out there interested in building LNER coaches (and less and less as time goes on) as modellers we need all the trade support we can get.

 

It will be good if Andy E. can implement some improvements, when I've finished the coach I'm doing I was going to do a few pictures and write to him with some observations. You've obviously communicated already, and this can only be for the good.

 

John.

Evening John,

 

Many ranges of kits have shown great promise over the years, but failed for similar reasons to those aflicking this range. Unlike Kirk, another not so accurate set of kits, they are not that cheap, compared to other options. Two many people take the position that we should be grateful, not I, not when I'm paying for my gratitude.

 

Many kits are sold over the years but only a small percentage are ever built, often by people not that familiar with the prototype. Because of this, It can take years to realise that the manufacturer is also not that familiar with the prototype. What sets Isinglass apart from previous kit manufacturers 'problematic areas', is that they have  produced for decades, a range of quite respected and generally accurate drawings, drawings that they then ignore in the production of their kits! Nobody seems to grasp the irony.

 

If Isinglass are to become a range that fulfills its promise, this thread may prove to be of great value in that regard. We shouldn't be fearful of critical examination if that is to be the case.

[thegreenhowards]

I’ve hurt my back, so over the last couple of weeks I’ve had more modelling time than usual as I can’t do many other things.  This has allowed me to finish off a few projects which have been on the back burner for a while. You may remember that back in June I showed some Mailcoach tourist stock which I’d bought for next to nothing on eBay but which had a poor paint job right over the windows.  Here’s the link if you want to go back:

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/.php?/topic/135510-coulsdon-works/&do=findComment&comment=3977588
 

Anyway, I’ve slowly been making progress and today I finished the first twin TO.

 

 

The paint job is not perfect but is as good as I could manage given the starting point. I’ve made one schoolboy error which I’m sure will be pointed out by either Andrew or Clive - but I’m going to make the rest of you you work for it!

 

These will add a bit of variety to my excursion set for Gresley Jn.

 

Andy

 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2020 by thegreenhowards

[thegreenhowards]

3 hours ago, John Tomlinson said:

Andy,

 

The other thing I'd say, and this is a general point, I do very much share your view that this range has great promise, and I think Andy Edgson is to be thanked by all of us for venturing into the field. As you noted, some of the etched product ranges elsewhere seem to be being withdrawn, and given that there can't be that many people out there interested in building LNER coaches (and less and less as time goes on) as modellers we need all the trade support we can get.

 

It will be good if Andy E. can implement some improvements, when I've finished the coach I'm doing I was going to do a few pictures and write to him with some observations. You've obviously communicated already, and this can only be for the good.

 

John.

I absolutely agree with this. I intend to send him a full list of comments at the end. 
 

One point is that the instructions are more or less non existent! I may have put the bogies on incorrectly given the ride height issue. And I still think that I built the coach as intended with the roof attached to the sides and clipping on to the floor plan, but you’ve made me wonder. It would be useful to be told what he intended!

 

Andy

[thegreenhowards]

4 hours ago, 37Oban said:

Looking at the photo there seems to be quite a gap between the bogie and body of the kit coach to the Pullman.  Depending on the radius of the curves on you layout could you not adjust this to lower the ride height?

 

Roja

Thanks Roja,

 

I’ve already had a go at filing down the Bogie mount, but it looks like a little more is required. A job for tomorrow. Curves are no problem - minimum 3ft.

Andy

 

[Bucoops]

Rather irritatingly I've just fitted Markits buffers to my MJT underframe - and it's ended up about 1mm high too - 

 

 

I did measure up before I soldered the bogie mounts on but still seem to have got it a bit wrong. I suspect it's because the buffer holes were correctly slightly biased towards the bottom, but the Markits buffers fill the whole beam. It also looks like the buffers are angled ever so slightly up.

 

However, the MJT buffer mounting plates are designed to be folded at right angles but when I measured up I found that was going to be too high so only folded to about 45deg - 

 

 

Which makes me wonder if I've done something wrong somewhere else!

[jwealleans]

Do the bogies pivot freely?   I've had instances where I've had to add a layer of etch under the presstud so the bogie cleared the underside of the solebar.

Edited October 8, 2020 by jwealleans
Spillchucking.

[thegreenhowards]

14 hours ago, John Tomlinson said:

Hi Andy,

 

I'm wondering if Roja means the gap on the non Pigeon van and its bogies, rather than the Pullman. That would be my first observation looking at the picture as the solebar looks high compared to that on the Pullman. Doubtless a silly question, but the wheels are the right size I presume?

 

Less helpfully, I wonder if the roof on the van has been lifted by the extra ledge on the end, to which Andrew has referred, I say this as with the yellow primer to heighten contrast there appears to be a gap along the top of the side and the roof. Nothing to be done about this I'd have thought, without risk of major damage.

 

My third observation, and this is on the basis of many trying times spent looking at such issues (!), the track on which the vehicles are placed for the photo isn't flat. This may have caused this end of the van to have risen, and/ or the end of the Pullman to droop. If so it would have accentuated the disparity as it doesn't take much in the way of hills and troughs to show.

 

The dia.109 Sleeping car I've been doing (got a coat of primer today) does run at an overall roof height similar to my Kirk and Hornby Gresleys, and also Bachmann Mk1's, however the buffers are still a tad high. I'll live with it, given the nature of the material I've no intention of trying to remove the headstocks and replace them - per Andrew's picture - that's something to bear in mind for the next one!

 

John.

John,

 

Given the lack of instructions i thought I’d check that we’re mounting bogies in the same way. This shows my mounting. I’ve already filed about 1mm off the round thingy on the bottom of the floor.

 

 

Is this how you’ve done it?

 

As for the wheels - they are indeed Hornby RTR as Andrew spotted (you can’t get anything past him!). They measure 14.2mm diameter which could only be making less than 0.1mm of difference to the ride height so is not the main issue. I tried Romfords originally but they wouldn’t turn freely in the Isinglass bogies as the axles seem to be marginally longer than Hornby ones. If the bogies were plastic, I’d just push the top hat bearing in with my soldering iron but I was nervous of doing that on resin. Has anyone tried that trick on resin?

 

Andy

[John Tomlinson]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

John,

 

Given the lack of instructions i thought I’d check that we’re mounting bogies in the same way. This shows my mounting. I’ve already filed about 1mm off the round thingy on the bottom of the floor.

 

 

Is this how you’ve done it?

 

As for the wheels - they are indeed Hornby RTR as Andrew spotted (you can’t get anything past him!). They measure 14.2mm diameter which could only be making less than 0.1mm of difference to the ride height so is not the main issue. I tried Romfords originally but they wouldn’t turn freely in the Isinglass bogies as the axles seem to be marginally longer than Hornby ones. If the bogies were plastic, I’d just push the top hat bearing in with my soldering iron but I was nervous of doing that on resin. Has anyone tried that trick on resin?

 

Andy

Andy,

 

I think my floorpan is the same as yours, the big white thing in the middle pushed through from below and on the top side holds the nut used for the bolt that holds everything together. The lower part of the "big white thing" should just be below the two straight strips moulded either side closer to the solebar - with the whole thing right way up - I assume these are side stabilisers. So far so good.

 

My bogie top is not like yours. I have nothing above the top flat save the thin ring that is part of the moulding, and which is set roughly at the circumference of your top hat moulding. I glued a thin washer inside this ring to increase the area of flat surface in contact with the floorpan "big white thing", but this barely raises the height. I think I'll need another thin shim when all is finished just to ensure the bogies are clear of the solebars, I'll see how thick my paint ends up being.

 

Writing this I remember being in something of a quandry when I did it as the instructions aren't clear at all, and probably dry fitted the various options to see which looked best. It was a while since I did mine, and I'm wondering if I put the "top hat" in the other way after opening out the hole, although I suspect I didn't use it at all. Whatever, my bogie tops are near flat, with nothing other than the thin moulded ring present.

 

Coming back to your bogie top, I wonder if the top hat bit that sticks upwards actually sits inside the "big white thing", so that the main part of the bogie top is then rubbing on the main ring of the "big white thing". If it isn't this may explain why the distance between the bogies and floorpan is too much. Even if the "top hat" on the bogie sits inside the "big white thing" it may still be too high and be the effective rubbing point, causing the floorpan to rise further from the bogie.

 

Good luck!

 

John.

Edited October 8, 2020 by John Tomlinson
Added "with the whole thing right way up" in para 1

[jwealleans]

The two flat strips near the solebar are to position MJT mounting plates.   I used MJT bogies on my D274 (same floorpan or very close to it) and I haven't noticed any height problem.

[John Tomlinson]

12 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

I’ve hurt my back, so over the last couple of weeks I’ve had more modelling time than usual as I can’t do many other things.  This has allowed me to finish off a few projects which have been on the back burner for a while. You may remember that back in June I showed some Mailcoach tourist stock which I’d bought for next to nothing on eBay but which had a poor paint job right over the windows.  Here’s the link if you want to go back:

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/.php?/topic/135510-coulsdon-works/&do=findComment&comment=3977588
 

Anyway, I’ve slowly been making progress and today I finished the first twin TO.

 

 

The paint job is not perfect but is as good as I could manage given the starting point. I’ve made one schoolboy error which I’m sure will be pointed out by either Andrew or Clive - but I’m going to make the rest of you you work for it!

 

These will add a bit of variety to my excursion set for Gresley Jn.

 

Andy

 

 

 

This has turned out really well considering the mess you had as the starting point.

 

I'm guessing the "schoolboy error" is the trussing, which should be spaced evenly between the bogies, not centred on the coach body, and be a bit longer?

 

John.

[Headstock]

3 hours ago, Bucoops said:

Rather irritatingly I've just fitted Markits buffers to my MJT underframe - and it's ended up about 1mm high too - 

 

 

I did measure up before I soldered the bogie mounts on but still seem to have got it a bit wrong. I suspect it's because the buffer holes were correctly slightly biased towards the bottom, but the Markits buffers fill the whole beam. It also looks like the buffers are angled ever so slightly up.

 

However, the MJT buffer mounting plates are designed to be folded at right angles but when I measured up I found that was going to be too high so only folded to about 45deg - 

 

 

Which makes me wonder if I've done something wrong somewhere else!

 

Good morning Bucoops,

 

the gap between the solebars and the fox bogies looks a bit extravagant. I usually fit my own homemade bolster to most carriages, that way I have total control over ride height on individual carriages and a formation. It's crucial for twins and other articulated carriages. The D&S ECJS full brake Below employs this method, the gap is nearer scale and the wheels (Gibson) will not catch the underframe.