Jump to content

lofty1966

New Triang Clerestories from old ?

Recommended Posts

Well, as we have the "new Colletts from old", perhaps we could have this?

Uncle Lofty found his razor saw in the basement of his new dwelling,  along with three ancient Triang Clerestories (i dont even remember buying) and the remains of a more modern "vintage" one , (so old they had the original pin through the axles style).

Let the butchery commence....

V5, D15, C23 (2mm too narrow) but that may change.

 

20190731_002528.jpg

20190731_002450.jpg

  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice job there, hopefully you can get hold of some more coaches,

because then you can do even more diagrams!

Have you checked www.penrhos.me.uk/index.shtml , I have found

it to be very useful and have already made a variety of diagrams.

I have made the following versions (mostly accurate, give or take

the odd millimetre here and there!) :- 

C23

C19

C10

C4

A4

E17

D3

D8

D14

D37

F12

They are almost ready for painting and bogies, I'll try and sort 

some photos soon. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, [email protected] said:

Nice job there, hopefully you can get hold of some more coaches,

because then you can do even more diagrams!

Have you checked www.penrhos.me.uk/index.shtml , I have found

it to be very useful and have already made a variety of diagrams.

I have made the following versions (mostly accurate, give or take

the odd millimetre here and there!) :- 

C23

C19

C10

C4

A4

E17

D3

D8

D14

D37

F12

They are almost ready for painting and bogies, I'll try and sort 

some photos soon. 

I have a fair few floating about.

Going to be carnage!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, [email protected] said:

C23

C19

C10

C4

A4

E17

D3

D8

D14

D37

F12

 

 

Quite a few of those are 8'6" wide. But looking forward to seeing how the lavatory windows and their panels can be achieved.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Classic stuff. I tried a C10-esque operation but owing to my inability to count, it turned out to have only seven compartments...

 

I used the more recent (1980s?) faux-LNER models; the plastic of these is more amenable to cutting, carving, and sawing than the Triang originals, which are of a more brittle material. You don't get quite the instant Great Western gratification that Lofty has achieved but mine were for a freelance project.

 

Question: did carriages 8'6" wide over the bodies have the solebars set the same distance apart as for 8'0" carriages, or were they further apart, to match the increased width? (A similar question arose with the frames for 8'0" wide LNWR carriages and 8'6" wide WCJS carriages; in that case it seems the frames were wider.)

 

Edited by Compound2632

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

Question: did carriages 8'6" wide over the bodies have the solebars set the same distance apart as for 8'0" carriages, or were they further apart, to match the increased width?

 

Good question. I don't know the answer. I've never seen a cross-section of an 8'-wide bodied bogie coach to compare. I'm guessing the distance was not changed, because of scroll bar to bogie suspension cup offsets, and changing the distance would also have involved new stepboard and stepboard bracket designs. That said, longer stock in late Dean times might have necessitated a widening of the solebars, and stepboard setups were changing anyway.

 

(Non-bogie stock solebar spacing was probably not changed, because of standardised W-iron positioning.)

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I believe there was a seven compartment third design, but I'd have to check dimensions (my library is inaccessible at present...). It might be only 7' 6" wide?

See edit below

 

Many of the 8'6" wide coaches  ran on 10' bogies, which presumably required new brackets anyway? Another thing to check!

 

My C23 is still 8' 0" wide but will probably (one day!) end up as the elliptical roofed version (C24?). I do have an aluminium extrusion for the roof somewhere. (IIRC it's sitting on my Kings X 70' 1922 1st/3rd for which it's too short - the original wooden moulding had warped but I found it the other day and it appears straight again! :scratchhead:)

 

EDIT

C4   7 compartment 3rd - 40' 0¾" x 8' 0¾" (the ¾" is the mouldings of course).

 

(I recalled the 7' 6" from 'Russell' but he was referring to the interior width.)

Edited by Il Grifone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the long discourse of G.J.C. himself quoted in GW Coaches Part I, there is a drawing of the 10 foot  Dean bogie on p95 . It gives the supports at 7' 8" centres. They then curve in slightly, and are fixed to the solebars just outside the ends of the axles (the actual dimension is unclear as it is different on the two ends???). The frames are 5' 8½ " apart and ⅝" thick + 8" of axle beyond that (not counting the larger portion beyond the journal at the extreme end - not clear on my copy, but looks like ¼"). Page 89 has the 6' 4" bogie - suspension supports at 7' 2" resulting in the solebars being approximately above the centre of the journal. The 8' 6" bogie on p93 has the supports at 7' 8" like the 10' bogie.

 

It thus appears (the dimension is not quoted) that the longer bogies gererally had more room to play with solebars set 6" further apart.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A "diet " (2mm narrow) D37

 

20190803_202104.jpg

20190803_202049.jpg

  • Like 6
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/07/2019 at 14:35, Miss Prism said:

 

Quite a few of those are 8'6" wide. But looking forward to seeing how the lavatory windows and their panels can be achieved.

 

 

Okay, I'll confess to not attempting to create models to Pendon standards,

I believe in the 3' rule, loosely coupled to Rule 1.

What I'm trying to model, is a reasonable range of more interesting coaches,

without obsessing over the odd 1/2 mm!

So the difference between 8' and 8' 6" is not that noticeable when they are in

a rake running around a decent circuit/layout.

With respect to the lavatory windows, I used doors with all the handles and 

catches removed to give a fair representation, Once they are painted, the

windows should look acceptable, after all, the coach lengths, compartment

widths & numbers and numbers & positions of panels are all very close with

respect to the diagrams I have attempted.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not trying to be critical of modelling effort and practice, but I do feel dutybound, as guardian of gwr.org, to point out the width issue, which many GWR fans are not aware of.

 

  • Like 3
  • Friendly/supportive 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are my projects (mainly unfinished! :(  )

 

C10 8 comp 3rd 

A4  7 comp 1st   (2 off)

    (straight Tri-ang  the short length/narrow width annoys every time I look at them)

C23 10 comp 3rd  (possibly  to a C24)

Bk/3rd   D15

E19 Bk/1st/3rd

   (non clerestory - the roof filler has fallen out so needs attention)

V5 4 wheel brake

    ( I thought from Tri-ang, but listed as Ratio - the underframe is in any case)

 

and two acquired at a toy fair  neither of which has addressed the width issue (on the 'to do' list)

( both are gangwayed so it's not a D37)

D37? Bk/3rd

C17 3rd

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

I am not trying to be critical of modelling effort and practice, but I do feel dutybound, as guardian of gwr.org, to point out the width issue, which many GWR fans are not aware of.

 

Hi Miss Prism

 

While I agree with your sentiment about the width of the coaches, with that knowledge it could well bug me but on the other hand I agree with Jeff. If it means you can have model coaches which are not available or are very expensive kits then as "layout coaches" would it be noticeable? I suppose it comes down the individual modeller and their own perceived standards. If they are having fun building something that is not readily available and then enjoying seeing run on their layout, all the rest of us can say is well done.

 

Anyhow, you there GWR modellers are not the only ones who cuts fings up for fun. I somehow ended up with a pile of Hornby Railroad LNER carriages which I purchased for their bogies to go under my cut and shut GER lines OLE suburban units. I have already done a articulated non-gangway twin brake composite and a GE section short BSK. I still loads of bits left so I am in the process of making a few more coaches. I have also started to make a Thompson Open second from Tri-ang Thompsons that I bought  for their roofs and underframes  to complete other projects. I will not claim these are accurate models, they are value for money, enjoyable to build and hopefully will look OK on my layout.

 

The left over Railroad underframes are GWR so I thought they would go well under a pair of K41(?) BG bodies I have acquired (they are aluminum pressings) only to find the battery boxes are in the wrong places.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I am not trying to be critical of modelling effort and practice, but I do feel dutybound, as guardian of gwr.org, to point out the width issue, which many GWR fans are not aware of.

 

I’m chewing over this, with removing the solebars and slicing down the middle adding a 2mm strip and mounting onto Comet underframes.

 I also have some offcut Collett underframes so maybe a play with them?

the Centre panels on the ends would be wider than the others but in a rake will it be that noticeable?

Edited by lofty1966

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The centre panel should be wider as it is a blank panel for a gangway. but the two outer panels are narrower (about 3"?). Whether this is noticeable in a train is arguable.

 

I was thinking of slitting down the middle  of the roof (possibly rescuing the lamptops for reuse, though I made them from screws and washers for my CCW composite). A new clerestory roof (really required anyway as there is no overhang on Tri-ang's effort) then covers the butchery. The clerestory needs the lights to be glazed/painted over and should be panelled too, but....

 

A thought - is the clerestory 6" wider on 8' 6" coaches. The drawings I found seem to suggest 3", though the drawing I found in a hurry was of a single arc clerestory on a three arc roof.

 

Who said GWR things were all the same?  :scratchhead:

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Who said GWR things were all the same?  :scratchhead:

 Someone who looks no earlier than 1923, I'd say. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything on the GWR was always the same, except when it was different...

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 05/08/2019 at 13:25, The Johnster said:

Everything on the GWR was always the same, except when it was different...

I’m sure I read somewhere the GWR was always different (and everything else was wrong)!

Edited by Hal Nail
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was certainly the GW's view.  You did the Swindon way or the wrong way...

 

Whether it was appropriate to be building 4 cylinder 4-6-0s and updated Victorian panniers in the 1950s is another matter.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Slow progress.

Too much house renovating and life in general.

Would have helped if I hadn't cut the body in the wrong place and had two joins right together. (2nd and 3rd pic)

20190821_202616.jpg

20190821_202658.jpg

20190821_202646.jpg

Edited by lofty1966
  • Like 9
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/08/2019 at 13:43, The Johnster said:

This was certainly the GW's view.  You did the Swindon way or the wrong way...

 

Whether it was appropriate to be building 4 cylinder 4-6-0s and updated Victorian panniers in the 1950s is another matter.

 

They did their job!   When you got it right the first time, why change?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pick up some in LNER Teak livery & have re-painted them in to GWR brown

On the Brake i have fitted 247 Developments Dean 8'6'' bogies

& on the other I have used there Dean 6'8'' Bogies 

Both have been fitted with Ronford turned brass coach buffers & given a Heavy weathering as i will be using them as a Paddy Train

 48715902252_04a37e7e4b_c.jpgThe coach's for paddy train are finished by brian mosby, on Flickr

48715402388_c0fb4efcf4_c.jpgThe coach's for paddy train are finished by brian mosby, on Flickr

48715402403_65ecc3164f_c.jpgThe coach's for paddy train are finished by brian mosby, on Flickr

48715732186_064837fc77_c.jpgThe coach's for paddy train are finished by brian mosby, on Flickr

48715732231_97632aaeb5_c.jpgThe coach's for paddy train are finished by brian mosby, on Flickr

  • Like 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.