Gresley Junction

[thegreenhowards]

3 hours ago, manna said:

G'Day Folks.

 

Don't you love the way a railway evolves.

 

manna

The truth is I just love tinkering. I enjoy track laying much more than scenery so I think I make the changes almost sub-consciously to delay having to start the scenery. I managed to do a fair bit when my daughter was interested, but she’s now more interested in painting her face than the layout!

[Clive Mortimore]

7 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Edited

 

In that vain, here is one train which I didn’t run during the sequence, the branch shuttle from Dunstable. The geography has got confused as this enters Gresley Jn from the SE instead of the NW as it did at Hatfield, but it’s reflective of the sort of train which would have run. For those who haven’t seen if before, the stock is a Gresley D.210 CL-BS twin artic. These were declassified to second only and used on the Dunstable branch in the late ‘50s (possibly earlier, but I don’t have any earlier carriage working notices).  Firstly a video of it arriving with N7, 69637.

 

And finally waiting to depart back to Dunstable.

 

 

 

Hi Andy 

 

A quick question , what are the origins of the Dia 210? 

 

I have just started to make a dia 214  which had 4 first class compartments and only 3 third/seconds in the CL fome left overs of other conversions. 

 

I am also doing a dia 244 CL which differed from the standard LNER CL in it only has two first class compartments not 3 and one more third/second. 

[thegreenhowards]

46 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Andy 

 

A quick question , what are the origins of the Dia 210? 

 

I have just started to make a dia 214  which had 4 first class compartments and only 3 third/seconds in the CL fome left overs of other conversions. 

 

I am also doing a dia 244 CL which differed from the standard LNER CL in it only has two first class compartments not 3 and one more third/second. 

Hi Clive,

 

Do you mean the origins of the model? If so I wrote it up on Coulsdon Works starting here:

It stretched over several months, but the sides are Mousa and the rest mainly MJT and 247. I now have a MasterClass Models complete kit to build following a recommendation from ‘Headstock’ of this Parish.

 

As for the prototypes, I think D.210 was similar to D.214, but the latter was GC only whereas the D.210 was used on both GN and GC. Both built in late ‘30s. I don’t know anything about the D.244.

 

Andy

[Clive Mortimore]

54 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Hi Clive,

 

Do you mean the origins of the model? If so I wrote it up on Coulsdon Works starting here:

It stretched over several months, but the sides are Mousa and the rest mainly MJT and 247. I now have a MasterClass Models complete kit to build following a recommendation from ‘Headstock’ of this Parish.

 

As for the prototypes, I think D.210 was similar to D.214, but the latter was GC only whereas the D.210 was used on both GN and GC. Both built in late ‘30s. I don’t know anything about the D.244.

 

Andy

Thanks Andy

 

I had a pile of bits and didn't want to waste them looked at what I could make. I thought about a D210 or a D214 as they both had the same number of compartments, just in a different order or even a D213, until I realised I didn't have enough van parts left for a longer van. Phil (Mallard60022) suggested I make a D210, so that helped me make my mind up. I know they were built for the Marylebone services but in the Harris brown book there is a photo of one at Manchester Victoria , so why not Sheffield Exchange? Mine will possibly take years to complete not just months.

 

There were  50 D244s, as I said earlier they had only 2 first compartments and five thirds, having no corridor large window on the first class end and three on the third class end so visually quite different to a D49 or 50 the common 3 and 4 compartment CL. Harris states they were built for the GER lines but a large number ended up in Scotland.

 

There are so many different types of carriage that appear buildable, they are slowly becoming more fun than locos.

[thegreenhowards]

12 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Thanks Andy

 

I had a pile of bits and didn't want to waste them looked at what I could make. I thought about a D210 or a D214 as they both had the same number of compartments, just in a different order or even a D213, until I realised I didn't have enough van parts left for a longer van. Phil (Mallard60022) suggested I make a D210, so that helped me make my mind up. I know they were built for the Marylebone services but in the Harris brown book there is a photo of one at Manchester Victoria , so why not Sheffield Exchange? Mine will possibly take years to complete not just months.

 

There were  50 D244s, as I said earlier they had only 2 first compartments and five thirds, having no corridor large window on the first class end and three on the third class end so visually quite different to a D49 or 50 the common 3 and 4 compartment CL. Harris states they were built for the GER lines but a large number ended up in Scotland.

 

There are so many different types of carriage that appear buildable, they are slowly becoming more fun than locos.

Clive,

 

I agree that a D.210 and, to a slightly lessor extent, a D.214 would be suitable for Sheffield Exchange. You might have to use rule 1 for the D.244 though! 

 

As you say, coach research and building is very interesting and I think I prefer it to locos. Not many people have A D.210/ D.214/ D.244 but locos are pretty common - even ones only available in kit form. It’s certainly more difficult as photos are much rarer and less likely to be identified in the caption and literature is less prolific. We are lucky to have the likes of Robert Carroll, Steve Banks and ‘Headstock’ (amongst many others) with their fantastic knowledge and collections of photos. I also like the fact that once the kit and info is available, a coach is much quicker to build than a loco and I know that I can get it running smoothly. I struggle for ages to get kit built locos running to an acceptable level.

 

I’m currently building the 52F A5 kit. I think Ive put in 12 hours so far and it’s slowly coming together, but there’s lots more to do. A coach (or two) would be finished in that time.

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2020 by thegreenhowards

[thegreenhowards]

Another train which didn’t feature during my sequence is the humble pick up goods. The more observant amongst you will have seen a motley line of wagons sitting in a siding with a J15 on the front. Well it’s been there for about two years as it was too much hassle to shunt with the old goods yard and having to reverse out to depart. But with the new track layout it becomes more practical, so here is J15, 65479 on the up pick up goods arriving in the new loop line at Gresley Jn.

 

 

The old goods yard had horrible old Peco points with the large frogs which made shunting unreliable. However, I found enough new electrofrog points for the relaying so it runs much better. I am also experimenting with Kadees for my pick up which seem to work quite well although I sometimes struggle to get them to couple up without running the next wagon over the magnet and that uncoupling. The solution seems to be to use permanent couplings between groups of two or three wagons so that there’s no chance of uncoupling. I’ve used some Bachmann pipes couplings and lots of the excellent ’James Trains’ 3D printed instanter and 3 link couplings, but I’ve now run out so need to order some more.

 

I’ve prepared 3 short videos today showing the shunting operation. If shunting isn’t your thing then I recommend giving them a miss! 

 

The first move is to leave the back of the train on the up slow. These are the wagons that are not being shunted at Gresley Jn. I’m not sure whether it would be acceptable to leave the wagons on the slow line within station limits - comments welcome. The first video shows the three empty coal wagons being collected. The vans are coupled with James Trains instanter couplings to avoid them uncoupling on the Kadee magnet.

 

 

The second shows the vans being deposited in the goods shed (off screen) and the loaded mineral wagons by the coal staithes. The minerals are Kadees throughout and it took a couple of takes to avoid them uncoupling when dropping off the vans - more work needed! The two open wagons next to the minerals have Bachmann Pipes connectors to avoid unintentional uncoupling.

 

 

The third video shows the front of the train being reattached to the rear which was left on the up slow and then departing via the new loop line. Looking at the video, I need to control my speed in shunting - sorry! The train will leave via the new third tunnel and there is assumed to be a connection back onto the up slow beyond the tunnel.

 

 

 

Any comments welcome - particularly on experience with Kadees.

 

Andy

 

 

 

[thegreenhowards]

Having run the up pick up good last week, today it’s time for the down pick up. Here we see it arriving across the rack of slips and running through the loop line between platforms 4 & 5. 
 

I originally tried filming the whole shunting operation with assistance from my daughter as ‘videomeister’, but it lasted 15 minutes which I thought would be testing everyone’s patience (including mine!), so I have included a few highlights instead.

 

The NB type 1 reversed into platform 6 and then shunted the first five wagons into a siding which will be picked up later for the Dunstable branch goods train. We now see it propelling the rest of the wagons across the other rack of slips back to the down side where the back three will be dropped in a factory.

 

Having dropped the vans, we now see it drawing three empty open wagons out of the factory siding into platform 1 where it reverses.

 

 

And finally, having run round the remaining wagons, here it is leaving Gresley Junction across the northern rack of slips.

 

 

For those who prefer still images, here is the NB Type 1 leaving Gresley Jn and joining the down line.

I have to admit that I’m using educated guesswork to compose this sequence and I don’t know whether it’s representative of what would have happened. For example, have I broken any operating rules and would the Dunstable branch pick up have been dropped off the main line train,or would it have run separately from, say, Ferme Park. Any comments very welcome.

 

Andy
 

Edited April 26, 2020 by thegreenhowards
Typo

[Wingman Mothergoose]

Hi Andy,

This is one amazing layout! Going to waste some time today reading through the entire thread and watching some of your videos! 
 

Chris G

[thegreenhowards]

2 hours ago, Wingman Mothergoose said:

Hi Andy,

This is one amazing layout! Going to waste some time today reading through the entire thread and watching some of your videos! 
 

Chris G

Chris,

 

Many thanks for your kind comments. I hope you enjoy the read/ watch.

 

Andy

[Wingman Mothergoose]

3 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Chris,

 

Many thanks for your kind comments. I hope you enjoy the read/ watch.

 

Andy

It’s always a massive pleasure to see LNER/ECML layouts, they’re like catnip to me! I’m building an North Eastern region layout at the moment. It’s far from complete but seeing layouts like yours, Gilbert’s and Tony Wright’s really inspire me 

 

Chris 

[thegreenhowards]

5 hours ago, Wingman Mothergoose said:

It’s always a massive pleasure to see LNER/ECML layouts, they’re like catnip to me! I’m building an North Eastern region layout at the moment. It’s far from complete but seeing layouts like yours, Gilbert’s and Tony Wright’s really inspire me 

 

Chris 

Chris,

 

Many thanks for your compliment, but I don't think you can compare my layout with PN or LB. Both are built to a finer scale than Gresley Jn and are much more complete. If and when I ever complete Gresley Jn. it will still be Peco code 100 and with relatively crude scenery.

 

What I can say is that I try to run full length trains with prototypical formations with the correct motive power. In that respect, PN and LB have been my guiding lights. And it is nearly all my own work - with a little help from eBay!

 

I hope you have enjoyed reading through the thread.

 

Andy

 

 

[Tony Wright]

59 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Chris,

 

Many thanks for your compliment, but I don't think you can compare my layout with PN or LB. Both are built to a finer scale than Gresley Jn and are much more complete. If and when I ever complete Gresley Jn. it will still be Peco code 100 and with relatively crude scenery.

 

What I can say is that I try to run full length trains with prototypical formations with the correct motive power. In that respect, PN and LB have been my guiding lights. And it is nearly all my own work - with a little help from eBay!

 

I hope you have enjoyed reading through the thread.

 

Andy

 

 

Good evening Andy,

 

I think the most important thing about your layout is that you've done it yourself. 

 

Though I've done a fair bit myself on Little Bytham, a large part of what's been achieved has been done by others; mainly through modelling barter of some kind, but still the work of others.

 

You must never lose sight of the fact that it's personal modelling on your part. For that, there is no substitute.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[thegreenhowards]

7 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Andy,

 

I think the most important thing about your layout is that you've done it yourself. 

 

Though I've done a fair bit myself on Little Bytham, a large part of what's been achieved has been done by others; mainly through modelling barter of some kind, but still the work of others.

 

You must never lose sight of the fact that it's personal modelling on your part. For that, there is no substitute.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Thanks Tony, that means a lot coming from you. 
 

I do like to do things myself. Partly because I take pride in it being truly MY layout but also because I begrudge paying someone else to have the fun! Sadly that means it will never be a masterpiece.

 

Andy
 

 

[Wingman Mothergoose]

10 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

 

Many thanks for your compliment, but I don't think you can compare my layout with PN or LB. Both are built to a finer scale than Gresley Jn and are much more complete. If and when I ever complete Gresley Jn. it will still be Peco code 100 and with relatively crude scenery.

 

What I can say is that I try to run full length trains with prototypical formations with the correct motive power. In that respect, PN and LB have been my guiding lights. And it is nearly all my own work - with a little help from eBay!

 

I hope you have enjoyed reading through the thread.

 

Andy

 

 

Andy,

I think I can totally compare your layout to the ones I mentioned. I don’t think you should put yourself down because you don’t think your layout is to the same standard, I disagree and think that your layout is to a high standard, and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed watching the videos you’ve posted and reading through the thread. 

It’s still a work in progress, as is mine. 
Ive really enjoyed your attention to detail with the train formations, and I’m extremely jealous of your Kirk quad-art sets! I’ve built several Kirk Gresley suburban coach kits recently, and converted some of them into articulated twin sets too.

 

I don’t know if I’m adventurous or skilled enough to attempt altering a Bachmann Thompson coach with brass sides or even building a brass kit, as my soldering isn’t great! I do want to build some MSE signals though. 

 

Keep up the great work. 
 

Chris

[bigwordsmith]

Seeing that artic set, and thinking how it has become popular again on High Speed trains, I wonder why everyone abandoned artics from the post war years?

[thegreenhowards]

1 hour ago, Wingman Mothergoose said:

Andy,

I think I can totally compare your layout to the ones I mentioned. I don’t think you should put yourself down because you don’t think your layout is to the same standard, I disagree and think that your layout is to a high standard, and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed watching the videos you’ve posted and reading through the thread. 

It’s still a work in progress, as is mine. 
Ive really enjoyed your attention to detail with the train formations, and I’m extremely jealous of your Kirk quad-art sets! I’ve built several Kirk Gresley suburban coach kits recently, and converted some of them into articulated twin sets too.

 

I don’t know if I’m adventurous or skilled enough to attempt altering a Bachmann Thompson coach with brass sides or even building a brass kit, as my soldering isn’t great! I do want to build some MSE signals though. 

 

Keep up the great work. 
 

Chris

Thanks Chris,

 

I do love artics! My quad art was an early build for me is is not built to a particularly high standard, but it does have a presence and I love it. 

 

Your’s looks good, but I would suggest you consider using white metal MJT stuff for the underframe rather than the Kirk stuff supplied with the kit. This is both better looking and gives badly needed weight to the coaches. It can be glued on with epoxy. Also be careful with the angle iron; most of these 51ft artics had truss rods rather than angle iron. There were some built in the late ‘30s with angle iron so check the numbers.

 

MSE kits are quite fiddly - I have built a couple but they produced some bad language along there way! Brass coach sides are a doddle by comparison, so I would start with them to practice soldering.

 

Andy

 

 

[thegreenhowards]

1 hour ago, bigwordsmith said:

Seeing that artic set, and thinking how it has become popular again on High Speed trains, I wonder why everyone abandoned artics from the post war years?

I agree Peter, a missed opportunity. I think reliability is a big issue as the problem with artics is that if one coach needs attention, both are taken out of service. With fixed formation trains like Eurostars that is less of a problem.

[Wingman Mothergoose]

31 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Thanks Chris,

 

I do love artics! My quad art was an early build for me is is not built to a particularly high standard, but it does have a presence and I love it. 

 

Your’s looks good, but I would suggest you consider using white metal MJT stuff for the underframe rather than the Kirk stuff supplied with the kit. This is both better looking and gives badly needed weight to the coaches. It can be glued on with epoxy. Also be careful with the angle iron; most of these 51ft artics had truss rods rather than angle iron. There were some built in the late ‘30s with angle iron so check the numbers.

 

MSE kits are quite fiddly - I have built a couple but they produced some bad language along there way! Brass coach sides are a doddle by comparison, so I would start with them to practice soldering.

 

Andy

 

 

Andy,

Thank you. Think I've built or converted about 6 twin sets so far, some for myself and some for other people. The set pictured actually has MJT underframe trusses on the right hand vehicle. I'm aware that the turnbuckle truss rods were used on the majority of the twin sets, but I wasn't keen on reproducing them. Although I'm happy to have a go at making a set of truss rods up to see how they look. I've used the MJT trusses on a couple of coaches so far, when I've bought them with missing parts. Numbers aren't so much of an issue for me, I did think about researching the correct numbers, but ended up using a Modelmaster transfer sheet with random numbers instead. 

I've heard the MSE kits can be a swine to make, I'm going to start off with their NER slotted post signal kit, and if I do a half decent job of it then I'll see about moving on to making my own from their parts so I can build models of the real signals at Richmond. Otherwise it might have to be either 'modeller's licence' and say that the NER signals were replaced with LNER/BR upper quadrants or I pay somebody to build the signals for me...

Which brass coach sides did you use and how easy are they to do?

 

Chris

 

[Tony Wright]

12 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Thanks Tony, that means a lot coming from you. 
 

I do like to do things myself. Partly because I take pride in it being truly MY layout but also because I begrudge paying someone else to have the fun! Sadly that means it will never be a masterpiece.

 

Andy
 

 

Good morning Andy,

 

What's a 'masterpiece'?

 

Something created by the great(s), often at a high cost. If so, it's a possession (a desirable one no doubt). To acquire it (whether that be individual items or a whole layout) one becomes a commissioner. If that's the case, the commissioner must never take credit for its physical construction, be that locos/stock/architecture/trackwork or whatever, other than as the facilitator. 

 

Your layout 'belongs' to you in an entirely different, and personally creative way. I commend you for it.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[thegreenhowards]

1 hour ago, Wingman Mothergoose said:

Andy,

Thank you. Think I've built or converted about 6 twin sets so far, some for myself and some for other people. The set pictured actually has MJT underframe trusses on the right hand vehicle. I'm aware that the turnbuckle truss rods were used on the majority of the twin sets, but I wasn't keen on reproducing them. Although I'm happy to have a go at making a set of truss rods up to see how they look. I've used the MJT trusses on a couple of coaches so far, when I've bought them with missing parts. Numbers aren't so much of an issue for me, I did think about researching the correct numbers, but ended up using a Modelmaster transfer sheet with random numbers instead. 

I've heard the MSE kits can be a swine to make, I'm going to start off with their NER slotted post signal kit, and if I do a half decent job of it then I'll see about moving on to making my own from their parts so I can build models of the real signals at Richmond. Otherwise it might have to be either 'modeller's licence' and say that the NER signals were replaced with LNER/BR upper quadrants or I pay somebody to build the signals for me...

Which brass coach sides did you use and how easy are they to do?

 

Chris

 

I’d say that Southern Pride are the easiest - the tumblehome is ready formed which really helps. They are also very good value. Thompson corridor stock doesn’t have too many doors either which reduces the hassle of adding foot furniture. Can you justify PV stock at Richmond?

The Harris blue book is good for numbers. Getting them right is part of the challenge of kit building for me. 
 

On MJT the battery boxes make a big difference.

 

Andy

 

[trw1089]

Really enjoyed catching up on your thread Andy, I’ve only just discovered it which is a travesty, I should’ve been following it until now.  Very jealous of all your wonderful coaching stock, something I am yet to focus on.  
 

Just subscribed to your YouTube videos too so I can double the fun!

 

Keep up the great work.

 

Cheers

Tony

[Wingman Mothergoose]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

I’d say that Southern Pride are the easiest - the tumblehome is ready formed which really helps. They are also very good value. Thompson corridor stock doesn’t have too many doors either which reduces the hassle of adding foot furniture. Can you justify PV stock at Richmond?

The Harris blue book is good for numbers. Getting them right is part of the challenge of kit building for me. 
 

On MJT the battery boxes make a big difference.

 

Andy

 

I think I'll give a set of Southern Pride sides a go when I can afford them. I can pretty much justify any main line stock at Richmond on troop trains or even the odd rail tour.

Do the MJT battery boxes add a fair amount of weight to Kirk kits? I've not had any issue with running them, not having a really long running line helps, as does only having relatively short trains. I was thinking about adding some 'liquid gravity' to the underside of some of them to give them a bit more weight, but if the battery boxes really help then I may as well order a load and fit them to all of my Kirk coaches. Speaking of the Kirk coaches, I was thinking about adding door and grab handles to them at some point, although I'm fairly happy with them as they are. I do have a set of sides and ends for a Kirk quad-art set, and I was considering having a go at scratch building them or at least combining parts from different kit manufacturers to make a set up, I can probably get Isinglass to make me some floors, roofs and bogies.

 

Chris

 

[thegreenhowards]

3 hours ago, trw1089 said:

Really enjoyed catching up on your thread Andy, I’ve only just discovered it which is a travesty, I should’ve been following it until now.  Very jealous of all your wonderful coaching stock, something I am yet to focus on.  
 

Just subscribed to your YouTube videos too so I can double the fun!

 

Keep up the great work.

 

Cheers

Tony

Many thanks for your kind words Tony and for all the ‘likes’ as you’ve read through.
 

I do love coaches and I think I prefer building them to locos - they’re quicker, there’s more selection of things not available RTR and I know that I can get them to work whereas with locos that’s a bit of a lottery!

 

The YouTube channel is really a dumping ground for videos that I’m putting on here. I’d recommend watching them via RMWeb because that’s where I give the description.

 

Andy

[thegreenhowards]

3 hours ago, Wingman Mothergoose said:

I think I'll give a set of Southern Pride sides a go when I can afford them. I can pretty much justify any main line stock at Richmond on troop trains or even the odd rail tour.

Do the MJT battery boxes add a fair amount of weight to Kirk kits? I've not had any issue with running them, not having a really long running line helps, as does only having relatively short trains. I was thinking about adding some 'liquid gravity' to the underside of some of them to give them a bit more weight, but if the battery boxes really help then I may as well order a load and fit them to all of my Kirk coaches. Speaking of the Kirk coaches, I was thinking about adding door and grab handles to them at some point, although I'm fairly happy with them as they are. I do have a set of sides and ends for a Kirk quad-art set, and I was considering having a go at scratch building them or at least combining parts from different kit manufacturers to make a set up, I can probably get Isinglass to make me some floors, roofs and bogies.

 

Chris

 

Chris,

 

The battery boxes don’t add a huge amount of weight on their own (5-10g) but combined with other MJT bits they weight a Kirk kit sufficiently. The main reason to fit them is that they’re an accurate reflection of a LNER twin battery box unlike the Kirk single ones.

 

 

As for door and grab handles, I think you can get away with a careful dab of gold paint on the Kirk door handles, but it’s worth adding the grab handles - although I didn’t on my quad art - too many doors!

 

Andy

Edited May 5, 2020 by thegreenhowards

[thegreenhowards]

All this talk about artics reminded me that I promised to run some of my pre war articulated stock when I finished the sequence. First up is the tourist stock. There were two versions of the tourist rakes, the long 12 car version formed BSO/twin~TO,RB, Twin TO, Twin TO, RB, Twin TO, BSO and the short version as featured here formed BSO, Twin TO, RB, Twin TO, BSO. Here it is behind V4, Bantom Cock which is a scratch built body on a Hornby chassis with a fairly horrible Hornby tender drive. I bought it second hand a while ago. I then replaced the valve gear with help from ‘Sir’ a couple of years ago, and have bought the correct Dave Bradwell 3500T tender kit, but have yet to build that. So you’ll have to ignore the dodgy tender! 

 

...and an aerial shot

 

I will leave it the reader to decide whether this is filmed during the short period when Bantom Cock was being tested out of Cambridge or post war in Scotland.

 

and now the stars of the show...

 

And finally the ‘compulsory’ video!