Coulsdon Works

[Clive Mortimore]

On 02/09/2019 at 23:20, thegreenhowards said:

It has taken longer than I'd hoped, but the D.210 is finally just about ready for the paintshop. Andrew, thanks for the tip on the accumulator box. I used what I think is Bachmann's take on one off one of their new BCKs. I attach some photos. Any comments welcome - particularly before I paint it! For those interested I used the following parts:

• Sides - Mousa
• Ends - 247 (CL) and Comet (BS)
• Roof - MJT
• Bogies - 247 3 step for the ends. MJT Heavy duty for the articulated one with one of their articulation units which I like.
• Floor - copper clad from Hobby Holidays
• Solebars - Albion Alloys 3x1 section
• Underframe - MJT (+ Bachmann box as above)
• Torpedo vents - Mike Trice 3D printed
• Rain strip - plastruct strip

Andy

 

 

Hi Andy

 

I like you model of a twin artic set. Here is my attempt at a dia 107 and 108 set. Built from Hornby "shortie" coaches. Not sure if they ever will be to the same standard as yours, but hopefully they will be OK as layout coaches on my layout and most of all been fun to make.

 

 

[thegreenhowards]

Clive,

 

I always enjoy seeing your cut and shuts. I’d never have thought of making non corridor stock out of the Gresley shorties, but yours works well. I did have a go at making a d.107/8 out of new Hornby non corridor stock some time ago. 

 

 

I think this looks looks quite good to the untrained eye. Unfortunately, I realised shortly after completing it that while the CL had an internal corridor on the separate coaches as modelled by Hornby, it did not have this on the artic twins, having a door to each compartment instead (like yours). So the side to the left of the lavatory window is all wrong. I’m now on the lookout for a cheap Hornby CL to cut up and make one good coach out of the two. However I think this twin shows the potential of the Hornby non corridor stock.

 

Pictures from the 1950s on the GN out of Kings Cross mainly seem to show the longer 2*55ft twins (like the d.210) rather than the 2*51ft (like d.107/8) versions so I’m concentrating on the former from now on. 

 

Andy

[Clive Mortimore]

3 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Clive,

 

I always enjoy seeing your cut and shuts. I’d never have thought of making non corridor stock out of the Gresley shorties, but yours works well. I did have a go at making a d.107/8 out of new Hornby non corridor stock some time ago. 

 

 

I think this looks looks quite good to the untrained eye. Unfortunately, I realised shortly after completing it that while the CL had an internal corridor on the separate coaches as modelled by Hornby, it did not have this on the artic twins, having a door to each compartment instead (like yours). So the side to the left of the lavatory window is all wrong. I’m now on the lookout for a cheap Hornby CL to cut up and make one good coach out of the two. However I think this twin shows the potential of the Hornby non corridor stock.

 

Pictures from the 1950s on the GN out of Kings Cross mainly seem to show the longer 2*55ft twins (like the d.210) rather than the 2*51ft (like d.107/8) versions so I’m concentrating on the former from now on. 

 

Andy

Hi Andy

 

I think the Kirk BT+CL twin used the bodies off his bogie BT and CL. Even the BT is different on a dia107 as it only has one set of double doors. Another thing I only discovered this week is the outer bogies on the artics are set in 9 ft from the ends not 8 ft as on bogie stock, despite the drawings showing it I assumed wrong with the Hertford Quad-art. Need to check my 107+108 set.

 

The longer twins were more common, and easily spotted having two lavatories in the CL. 

 

There was one diagram of twins with the CL with the corridors, it was paired with an eight compartment third, so swap the body of the BT with a T. Mind you it would be a wee bit out of area as it was the CLC dia 84.

 

One thing you can be sure of with the LNER that anything standard would be different to any thing else that was standard.

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Clive,

 

I always enjoy seeing your cut and shuts. I’d never have thought of making non corridor stock out of the Gresley shorties, but yours works well. I did have a go at making a d.107/8 out of new Hornby non corridor stock some time ago. 

 

 

I think this looks looks quite good to the untrained eye. Unfortunately, I realised shortly after completing it that while the CL had an internal corridor on the separate coaches as modelled by Hornby, it did not have this on the artic twins, having a door to each compartment instead (like yours). So the side to the left of the lavatory window is all wrong. I’m now on the lookout for a cheap Hornby CL to cut up and make one good coach out of the two. However I think this twin shows the potential of the Hornby non corridor stock.

 

Pictures from the 1950s on the GN out of Kings Cross mainly seem to show the longer 2*55ft twins (like the d.210) rather than the 2*51ft (like d.107/8) versions so I’m concentrating on the former from now on. 

 

Andy

 

Chopping up two Hornby CL's to produce one carriage seems a little rad, why not just brass side the b****r?

[thegreenhowards]

14 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

Even the BT is different on a dia107 as it only has one set of double doors. 

 

Well I didn't know that, but having looked at the Longworth book, I see you're correct. Sounds like too much chopping would be required to get it right. It looks like the only twins which can easily be created from Hornby vehicles are the T-T and F-T (unless these also have some differences that I'm not aware of!). I already have a Kirk F-T, but I might swap the bodies to make a T-T in the long run. 

 

14 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

The longer twins were more common, and easily spotted having two lavatories in the CL. 

 

Agreed, and rather more elegant I feel. 

 

12 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Chopping up two Hornby CL's to produce one carriage seems a little rad, why not just brass side the b****r?

Andrew, you're probably right, but this was supposed to be an easy win! If I'm going to labour away at all the hinges and handles on a brass side, I'd rather build a longer vehicle. A d.192/3 is next in the plans, but that will take some cutting and shutting of brass sides.

[Clive Mortimore]

12 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Chopping up two Hornby CL's to produce one carriage seems a little rad, why not just brass side the b****r?

Hi Andrew,

 

Two answers, first I already have the coaches left over from another project, so no cost involved, and second it is fun to do.

[Headstock]

7 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Andrew,

 

Two answers, first I already have the coaches left over from another project, so no cost involved, and second it is fun to do.

 

Evening Clive,

 

Given your large dollop of common sense, I don't think my comment is applicable to what you are doing at all. Not to mention you seem to know exactly what train you are building, while Andy dose not.

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Evening Clive,

 

Given your large dollop of common sense, I don't think my comment is applicable to what you are doing at all. Not to mention you seem to know exactly what train you are building, while Andy dose not.

Hi Andrew

 

Your comment was very valid, I often ask myself the same question as I cut another 1/2 mm off to get something to fit. Articulated sets are a minefield as many of the composites are not the same as standard bogie ones and many of the brakes are slightly different to their bogie counterparts. As for knowing what I am doing, I checked the bogie position on the 107+108 set and they are wrong. I set them the same at 8 ft in from the ends not 9 ft. 

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Evening Clive,

 

Given your large dollop of common sense, I don't think my comment is applicable to what you are doing at all. Not to mention you seem to know exactly what train you are building, while Andy dose not.

Hi Andrew

 

Your comment was very valid, I often ask myself the same question as I cut another 1/2 mm off to get something to fit. Articulated sets are a minefield as many of the composites are not the same as standard bogie ones and many of the brakes are slightly different to their bogie counterparts. As for knowing what I am doing, I checked the bogie position on the 107+108 set and they are wrong. I set them the same at 8 ft in from the ends not 9 ft. 

[thegreenhowards]

27 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Andrew

 

Your comment was very valid, I often ask myself the same question as I cut another 1/2 mm off to get something to fit. Articulated sets are a minefield as many of the composites are not the same as standard bogie ones and many of the brakes are slightly different to their bogie counterparts. As for knowing what I am doing, I checked the bogie position on the 107+108 set and they are wrong. I set them the same at 8 ft in from the ends not 9 ft. 

Clive,

 

Do you get all your info from Isinglass drawings or do you have another source?

 

Also, I’ve done lots of cuts and shuts on Kirk sides which glue together very well with poly cement. Are Hornby shorties as easy to work with or do you have to use

 

Andy

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Andrew

 

Your comment was very valid, I often ask myself the same question as I cut another 1/2 mm off to get something to fit. Articulated sets are a minefield as many of the composites are not the same as standard bogie ones and many of the brakes are slightly different to their bogie counterparts. As for knowing what I am doing, I checked the bogie position on the 107+108 set and they are wrong. I set them the same at 8 ft in from the ends not 9 ft. 

 

Evening Clive,

 

d 107/108 were 51'1 1/2'' stock if I recal. I don't have the relevant diagram book handy, what was the length between the centres of the bogies?

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Andy 

 

I use the diagrams in the Harris books and the Nick Campling drawings mainly for LNER coaches. I have a Isinglass drawing of a Artic Twin that has been drawn as a wooden body when the diagram the drawing is based on is for one of the steel types, diagram 310.  On the drawing it is stated that in one of Dr Allen's East Anglian books a photo shows them as a wooden bodies. I wonder if there has been a slight mix up. 

Edited September 9, 2019 by Clive Mortimore

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

Clive,

 

Do you get all your info from Isinglass drawings or do you have another source?

 

Also, I’ve done lots of cuts and shuts on Kirk sides which glue together very well with poly cement. Are Hornby shorties as easy to work with or do you have to use

 

Andy

 

I've only chopped up Hornby Gresleys (modern) for other reasons (sadistic pleasure). However, I wouldn't consider them very user friendly for cut and shutting in the manor of a Kirk kit. The plastic is kind of weird, very thin and bendy. Then there is the thick but brittle glazing strip that has had its molecules bonded to the sides.

Edited September 8, 2019 by Headstock
to clarify a point, modern Gresleys

[Clive Mortimore]

9 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Evening Clive,

 

d 107/108 were 51'1 1/2'' stock if I recal. I don't have the relevant diagram book handy, what was the length between the centres of the bogies?

Hi Andrew

 

The diagram shows the bogie centres as 42 feet 7 1/4 inches. 

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

Clive,

 

Do you get all your info from Isinglass drawings or do you have another source?

 

Also, I’ve done lots of cuts and shuts on Kirk sides which glue together very well with poly cement. Are Hornby shorties as easy to work with or do you have to use

 

Andy

Whoops I didn't answer part two. 

 

For most work I use Revell Contacta, sometimes a liquid solvent. I find the shortie Hornby's  OK to work with, easier than the Airfix/Dapol LMS coaches I was cutting up last week. They cannot be mixed with Kirk sides as the panelling doesn't match, that is the Hornbys. 

[Headstock]

9 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Andrew

 

The diagram shows the bogie centres as 42 feet 7 1/4 inches. 

 

Morning Clive,

 

9' for bogie centre, over the body, seems to have been pretty standard across a lot of LNER stock fitted with Gresley bogies. The 51' 1 1/2'' non articulated/non gangway stock, are a bit of an outlier in having 8' to the bogie centres. Interestingly, 47' is about the max allowed between bogie centres for Gresley stock across the board, both the 65' sleeping cars and the 55' 6 1/4'' twins have this arrangement. The twins have the bogie centres set at 9' from the headstock and the big sleepers have the bogies set  in at 9' 8''.

 

Articulating the Hornby non gangway Gresleys has proved quite popular in recent years. However, not only are the outer bogies in the wrong place but also the battery boxes, Queen posts/needle beams and trussing. In addition, some conversions that I have seen, have paid little attention to whether the resulting twin should have had angle iron or turnbuckle underframes.

Edited September 9, 2019 by Headstock
to add info

[thegreenhowards]

12 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Andy 

 

I use the diagrams in the Harris books and the Nick Campling drawings mainly for LNER coaches. I have a Isinglass drawing of a Artic Twin that has been drawn as a wooden body when the diagram the drawing is based on is for one of the steel types, diagram 310.  On the drawing it is stated that in one of Dr Allen's East Anglian books a photo shows them as a wooden bodies. I wonder if there has bee a slight mix up. 

Hi Clive,

 

It sounds like a mix up to me, although I’m not enough of an expert to say for sure. There are certainly pictures around of steel bodied d.310s. E.g. https://www.steve-banks.org/modelling/197-gresley-51-1-1-2-steel-panelled-stock

 

Andy

[Darryl Tooley]

According to the late Chris Bishop, in a letter published in issue 186 of the LNER Study Group Newsletter, the first six of dia 310 built in 1941 for the Nottingham and West Yorkshire districts were steel-panelled as per the official drawing, but the second six were teak-panelled.

 

D

[Headstock]

 

Evening all,

 

I was going to ask if d 310 had a teak and steel clad version. Isinglass, for obviouse reasons, tend to only produce a drawing representing the teak version, if there is also a steel clad version to the same dimensions. D 210 (teak) and d 313 (steel) spring to mind. any detail differances are usually covered by insert detail drawings on the same page, ie the diferent style of toplights on the D 313 are included with the main drawing of the d 210.

[thegreenhowards]

Time for a change from the artics.

 

I've completed the third of the four Thompson coaches I started back in May. This one's a dining SO.

 

This time I had both Isinglass and Southern Pride drawings, but neither were convincing on the underframe. The latter had no details, while the Isinglass drawing didn't seem to match photos which seem to show the single battery box as above.

 

The donor for this one was a new Bachman Thompson bought for £20 from Model Railways Direct in their sale. This certainly makes the conversion easier than using the old Bachmanns as there's no need to bother with reprofiling the roof and you get a better underframe/ bogies as a basis.

 

 

This now gives me a complete Thompson triple dining set.

 

For now they will run in my 1410 KX-York/Hull rake which contained such a 3-set until 1958. I'm not sure if I can legitimately run this with Mk 1 prototype E3083 (as in my post of 4th August) as by the time this appeared in the carriage workings (1959) the Thompson SO had been replaced by a mark 1 TSO. AS E3083 was built in 1957, I'm hoping it was in the rake from earlier than 1959, but if not, I will assume the Thompson SO is standing in for a mark1 - rule 1! 

 

Andy

[thegreenhowards]

A bit of a change recently from my normal fare. I’ve been building a GCR/ LNER bogied fish wagon. Before you get excited Andrew, I’m not moving East, but I picked up a couple of very old WSM kits cheap and thought it would make for a bit of variety.

 

It was a bit of a struggle to build because the kit was very old and the brass was both thicker than is the norm now and very tarnished. All the outside framing had to be laminated onto the sides, and that was quite hard - lots of tinning and lots of heat. Also the instructions are pretty basic with limited drawings and I’ve found it difficult to find pictures of the prototype. So I’ve used pictures of completed Brassmasters kits as a guide - not ideal but all I could find.

 

It’s got to the primer stage and, in my opinion, looks quite imposing.

 

Before I go any further I’ve got a couple of questions which hopefully someone can help me with.

 

Firstly on livery. The WSM instruction give details of BR Livery for these vans in which they say the body sides were “Orange/ Brown”. These vans had largely disappeared by 1948 with just a few hanging on, so I very much doubt they got BR livery. However I’m not sure what the WSM instructions mean. Does orange/ brown mean BR Crimson or do they mean that in early BR days they would have been in late LNER livery - maybe coach brown? My intention is to run it in an early BR van train, as I’m sure they would have been relegated from fish traffic by this time. Any clues as to livery for such a role would be gratefully appreciated.

 

Secondly, as you can see from the pictures, the brass has not cleaned up completely despite a good scrub in Jif. Will I be alright to paint it with etch primer like this, or do I need to do some more scrubbing?

 

Andy

[jwealleans]

They do make an impressive vehicle, don't they?  The R&E Models version is still available from Brassmasters. 

 

I have read relatively recently (can't remember where) that they were underutilised on fish traffic and about half of them had the slats boarded in and were given over to parcels traffic.  There was a photo of one in what looked like a parcels/sundries working in the last or last but one Gresley Observer.  They would always have been freight oxide under the LNER and it's doubtful any which survived would have been repainted by BR.

 

I'd run a wire brush in a Dremel all over that before washing it again.  Your etching primer will key much more effectively onto clean brass.

[Adrian Stevenson]

Looks good. I think I would certainly have a go at some further cleaning before applying any primer.

[Headstock]

Get it cleaned properly otherwise you will ruin all your hard work. The paint finish will be poor if it is applied to the surface as it is and the paint  will not stay on in the long term, . Elbow grease is required, scrapers, fine wire wool, fiberglass brushes and scalpel blades and that excess solder sucker off stuff if you haven't got a Dremel. Now that you becoming a proper modeler of things GCR, those tardy East coast shenanigans just wont do.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Headstock

[thegreenhowards]

It’s been quiet on here for a while but I haven’t been completely idle. Main focus was on exhibiting our club layout Oakbourne at Croydon.

Now that’s over, I’ve made some more progress on the twin art. I think I’ve done the ‘homework’ that Andrew set me (!) and it’s now completed externally.

 

 

 

I've just got the interior to do, which I will start tonight in front of the telly.

 

Andy