Gresley Dia.242 Artic stock, from Kirk kits

[John Tomlinson]

Like several before me, I have been investigating the use of Kirk suburban kits to make Articulated 51ft. suburban stock.

 

I have both First (7 compartment) and Third (8 compartment) coach kits, and as far as I can see looking at the Harris books these satisfy the requirements of the Dia.242 artics built in 1937/38 for the Marylebone ex.GC line services. There are no funnies with lavatories, which seem designed to torpedo attempts to make other types of Artic. stock from this source. Because of the lateish date of building, these should have angle iron trusses rather than the earlier rod and turnbuckle arrangement.

 

Before I plough ahead I wonder if anyone knows of any just cause or impediment to the project. I ask as the whole subject is clearly a minefield, and I know others have boldly gone before!

 

Many thanks,

 

John.

 

 

[Gibbo675]

56 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

Like several before me, I have been investigating the use of Kirk suburban kits to make Articulated 51ft. suburban stock.

 

I have both First (7 compartment) and Third (8 compartment) coach kits, and as far as I can see looking at the Harris books these satisfy the requirements of the Dia.242 artics built in 1937/38 for the Marylebone ex.GC line services. There are no funnies with lavatories, which seem designed to torpedo attempts to make other types of Artic. stock from this source. Because of the lateish date of building, these should have angle iron trusses rather than the earlier rod and turnbuckle arrangement.

 

Before I plough ahead I wonder if anyone knows of any just cause or impediment to the project. I ask as the whole subject is clearly a minefield, and I know others have boldly gone before!

 

Many thanks,

 

John.

 

 

Hi John,

 

Are they different from those built by that @Clive Mortimore fellow as featured on page 290 of Sheffield Exchange ?

 

He knows about this sort of thing with his head full of diagram numbers type of brain, in fact, I'm surprised he hasn't already told you the answer !

 

Gibbo.

[John Tomlinson]

Hi Gibbo,

 

Yes, I'm afraid quite different. Clive's pair are a 107/108, plus there's a quad set, basically 4 coaches of different lengths on 5 bogies. The whole thing is a nightmare to be sure you have the correct answer, as there's lots of different variants, hence my question to the wise. I was simply going through my cupboard of coach stuff, and thought it would be fun to try to make something a bit oddball of two kits that I have, probably bought at a Toyfair in one of those big trays of assorted things one sees. I'm doing a composite coach built as intended from one of these kits, as I felt I needed a break from other rumbling along projects. Basically they're quite a good product if a bit last century, and with some extra work can be made very decent indeed.

 

Hope you're keeping OK in these strange times.

 

John.

[Clive Mortimore]

4 hours ago, John Tomlinson said:

Like several before me, I have been investigating the use of Kirk suburban kits to make Articulated 51ft. suburban stock.

 

I have both First (7 compartment) and Third (8 compartment) coach kits, and as far as I can see looking at the Harris books these satisfy the requirements of the Dia.242 artics built in 1937/38 for the Marylebone ex.GC line services. There are no funnies with lavatories, which seem designed to torpedo attempts to make other types of Artic. stock from this source. Because of the lateish date of building, these should have angle iron trusses rather than the earlier rod and turnbuckle arrangement.

 

Before I plough ahead I wonder if anyone knows of any just cause or impediment to the project. I ask as the whole subject is clearly a minefield, and I know others have boldly gone before!

 

Many thanks,

 

John.

 

 

Hi John

 

I see Gibbo has dropped me in it.

 

If using the Kirk bodies as intended then the options of twin articulated coaches does become a tad limited. The dia 242 as mentioned is one choice. Dia 124 and 126 is also a third and first set, but with turn buckles not angle iron trusses. There is also the dia 105 and 106 third plus third sets, again turn buckle underframes. 

 

Another one which would make an interesting model is the CLC dia 84 which is a third and composite lavatory combination. The composite is the only artic CL with the side corridors and large windows along the corridor like the hauled CLs. They have the added delight for us modellers of the uncommon as post nationalisation they were numbered in the LMS/LMR series.

 

The Kirk third brake is useless as it comes. It a 4 compartment coach, there were a few artic 4 compartment coaches but they had only one set of van doors not two as modelled by Kirk.

 

There is also doing some cut and shuts to make those that the kits don't match. My doctor says this lockdown has delayed the next step in my treatment but he is sure he will get me back to buying RTR and moaning about it.

[Gibbo675]

2 hours ago, John Tomlinson said:

Hi Gibbo,

 

Yes, I'm afraid quite different. Clive's pair are a 107/108, plus there's a quad set, basically 4 coaches of different lengths on 5 bogies. The whole thing is a nightmare to be sure you have the correct answer, as there's lots of different variants, hence my question to the wise. I was simply going through my cupboard of coach stuff, and thought it would be fun to try to make something a bit oddball of two kits that I have, probably bought at a Toyfair in one of those big trays of assorted things one sees. I'm doing a composite coach built as intended from one of these kits, as I felt I needed a break from other rumbling along projects. Basically they're quite a good product if a bit last century, and with some extra work can be made very decent indeed.

 

Hope you're keeping OK in these strange times.

 

John.

Hi John,

 

I'm fine thanks busy going for walks, building motorbikes, playing toy trains (DMU's painted today) and eating chicken dinners with loads of buttery mash and a cup of tea !

 

 

2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi John

 

I see Gibbo has dropped me in it.

 

If using the Kirk bodies as intended then the options of twin articulated coaches does become a tad limited. The dia 242 as mentioned is one choice. Dia 124 and 126 is also a third and first set, but with turn buckles not angle iron trusses. There is also the dia 105 and 106 third plus third sets, again turn buckle underframes. 

 

Another one which would make an interesting model is the CLC dia 84 which is a third and composite lavatory combination. The composite is the only artic CL with the side corridors and large windows along the corridor like the hauled CLs. They have the added delight for us modellers of the uncommon as post nationalisation they were numbered in the LMS/LMR series.

 

The Kirk third brake is useless as it comes. It a 4 compartment coach, there were a few artic 4 compartment coaches but they had only one set of van doors not two as modelled by Kirk.

 

There is also doing some cut and shuts to make those that the kits don't match. My doctor says this lockdown has delayed the next step in my treatment but he is sure he will get me back to buying RTR and moaning about it.

Hi Clive,

 

We knew you had it in you, its why we put up with admire you so much !!!

 

Not so windy today so sprayed up thirteen DMU's, it must be a record for me and I didn't even feel the need stop half way through to build an unpainted something else.

 

Gibbo.

[John Tomlinson]

Thanks for the responses.

 

Folk think Gresley was a hero but Thompson a villain - I beg to differ.

 

Why on earth any sane person would design so many coaches each a little bit different is beyond me. I guess it could only have been possible in an era of cheap labour when even skilled craftsmen were only paid peanuts. Thompson was a practical if difficult genius who understood the commercial sense, nay necessity, of standardisation, delivered with style in his B1 and the application of its boiler across a wide range of loco classes. This in an era when labour was, quite rightly in my view, rising in real cost and materials were rationed by availability.

 

Thanks to Clive for his succinct summary of the use, or otherwise, of Kirk kits, and to Gibbo also, 13 DMU's coo!!, - down here in Rutland it's beeen far to windy to go outside to spray!

 

John.

[NDN]

Did the 51ft articulated twins with turn-buckle underframes have two sets of truss rods like the standard 51ft coaches or four sets of truss rods like the 61ft 6ins coaches and quad arts?

 

Thanks

 

Nigel

[John Tomlinson]

39 minutes ago, NDN said:

Did the 51ft articulated twins with turn-buckle underframes have two sets of truss rods like the standard 51ft coaches or four sets of truss rods like the 61ft 6ins coaches and quad arts?

 

Thanks

 

Nigel

Ha, that's a good question, and one that I've been pondering since I opened a pack of MJT turnbuckles yesterday afternoon and read the instructions. MJT say, as you have done, two for the 51ft., 4 for the 61ft 6in., but are silent on the Artics. Interesting that you say the Quad Arts had 4, despite being short coaches. The Dia.242 being later had trestles not turnbuckles, and I don't know if these are 2 or 4 either.

 

I'm intending to have a rootle through my books to see if I can find any useful pictures, though given the lack of coverage of most things below the solebars I'm not optimistic.

 

As ever, contributions from other forum members will be very gratefully received!

 

John.

 

 

[MikeTrice]

4

[NDN]

Mike, thanks.

I thought 4 was likely, given how close the twins bogies centres are to those of the 61ft 6in stock.

 

Nigel

[John Tomlinson]

Whilst Mike was kindly giving us the answer, I have been doing a bit of research.

 

Well worth a read are two Steve Banks articles in Model Rail, for November and December 2004 covering the topic of LNER twins. The December one covers conversion of Kirk kits to make a BT - CL twin, apparently the most common, it does appear however that relatively little of the kit is unscathed - it is a major reworking. The old adage "never base a model on a model" is a good one, but FWIW Mr. Banks also has 4 turnbuckles on his Artic. underframes.

 

John.

[NDN]

John,

 

Thanks for the heads up about the two articles. They certainly sound to be well worth a read.

 

Nigel

[jwealleans]

Quote

Why on earth any sane person would design so many coaches each a little bit different is beyond me.

 

I believe it's because the carriages were specified by the regions and the CME had to supply what they requested.   That's why you get RTPs on the ECML but nowhere else and different combinations of twins in different areas.  Carriages were modular, so it was relatively easy to specify different combinations of compartments and lavs as long as the underframe length was respected.   The D50 CL is a classic case - one diagram across every area... except the GE, who insisted on one fewer first class compartment (D244).

[Ian Kirk]

Still doing this in O gauge where my "modular" system allows different types to be built from standard parts.  The First/third twin should be possible in 4mm with the standard coach bodies. I wish these were still available. Third/third would also.  Just to tease you I can confirm that a Brake third/third is in the O gauge range as I made a couple of extra modules for the different brake.

Don't knock Gresley's coach designs. The variety of types has given me a living for the best part of 50 years.

 

best wishes,

 

Ian

[John Tomlinson]

40 minutes ago, Ian Kirk said:

Still doing this in O gauge where my "modular" system allows different types to be built from standard parts.  The First/third twin should be possible in 4mm with the standard coach bodies. I wish these were still available. Third/third would also.  Just to tease you I can confirm that a Brake third/third is in the O gauge range as I made a couple of extra modules for the different brake.

Don't knock Gresley's coach designs. The variety of types has given me a living for the best part of 50 years.

 

best wishes,

 

Ian

Thank you for this.

 

As it happens, I have been tinkering in "O" gauge for a little while, with a few wagon kits built and now a Mercian shunter.

 

Three of your LNER coach kits in the larger scale are in my cupboard, as I thought these would be an interesting place to start with the modular construction. Having investigated and built some 4mm coaches, I hope to move on to the senior scale in due course, a bit wiser if nothing else.

 

Thank you for these excellent and pleasant to build kits in both scales.

 

John.

[Clive Mortimore]

8 hours ago, jwealleans said:

 

I believe it's because the carriages were specified by the regions and the CME had to supply what they requested.   That's why you get RTPs on the ECML but nowhere else and different combinations of twins in different areas.  Carriages were modular, so it was relatively easy to specify different combinations of compartments and lavs as long as the underframe length was respected.   The D50 CL is a classic case - one diagram across every area... except the GE, who insisted on one fewer first class compartment (D244).

Hi Jonathan

 

Funny you should mention a dia 244 CL look what i am making from left overs....Hornby railroad Gresleys but Kirk Kits could be an alternative, as could the newer Hornby non-gangway coaches but at £40+ tad expensive to cut and shut.

 

As you say each area had its own ideas of what stock it wanted, to go with the Dia 244 the GER section had a TL Dia 265. I am intending on scratchbuilding one.

 

 

As this is a thread about Artic Twins here are the start of a Dia 214 BT+CL. Again Hornby Railroad left overs.

 

 

[John Tomlinson]

Hi Clive,

 

I think you may have started a contagious disease. I'd never owned a Hornby early Gresley until earlier this week when I picked up 4 on ebay for not a lot. They've been sitting in quarantine now for a couple of days, thanks to another contagion, but I may soon have to get the knife out, especially after seeing this last post!

 

John.

[Wingman Mothergoose]

On 22/04/2020 at 15:31, John Tomlinson said:

Like several before me, I have been investigating the use of Kirk suburban kits to make Articulated 51ft. suburban stock.

 

I have both First (7 compartment) and Third (8 compartment) coach kits, and as far as I can see looking at the Harris books these satisfy the requirements of the Dia.242 artics built in 1937/38 for the Marylebone ex.GC line services. There are no funnies with lavatories, which seem designed to torpedo attempts to make other types of Artic. stock from this source. Because of the lateish date of building, these should have angle iron trusses rather than the earlier rod and turnbuckle arrangement.

 

Before I plough ahead I wonder if anyone knows of any just cause or impediment to the project. I ask as the whole subject is clearly a minefield, and I know others have boldly gone before!

 

Many thanks,

 

John.

 

 

Hi John,

I've converted several Kirk coaches into articulated twin sets, most of them probably not prototypical, but they look the part.

This one is a proper Kirk Third/Third articulated twin kit, which I finished last week(it has the wrong numbers on it, but that doesn't really bother me so much)

This one is a Third/Third brake, that I converted from two suburban coaches. The under frames are too short, mainly because I had almost finished the brake before I decided to convert it to a twin, I may change it at some point in the future though. The full Third was bought as a spares coach as it was in a sorry state, but I managed to find parts to finish it in my spares box. Fitted both sets with NEM pocket mounts and both will also have vacuum pipes at either end. I set the gap in the middle so they would go round the sharp curves on my layout(curves which are no longer so sharp as I've moved house and have much more room for my layout!). This second set also has a different articulation set up than the Third/Third above, this one uses the pins into the bogie method that the Kirk/Mailcoach Coronation kit uses

 

Chris G 

 

[John Tomlinson]

Thanks for the post, these have turned out well and you seem to have achieved a quality finish.

 

I'm not sure why they are too short, unless they were intended as from the few diagrams on 55ft underframes. I understood from Clive Mortimore and Andy (Coulsdon Works) threads that there is an issue with the number of doors in the Brake part of the kit for the single Brake Third, which doesn't correspond to the Brake Third in the Artic pair. However the Third - Third and First - Third should be fine from the single coaches, as advised by contributors above.

 

As it happens I'm in process of finishing a single Kirk Composite at the moment - later today I should be fitting the Turnbuckle underframe rods and Battery boxes, both of which I'm doing from MJT bits. The Dia. 242 Artic. is correct with angle trussing, although examples posted elsewhere (on Wright Writes) by Andrew (Headstock), suggest that it can be embellished quite a bit from what's in the kit.

 

I do have a couple of books by Michael Harris, one is blue and covers LNER coaches generally, the second is brown and bigger, and covers the Gresley designs (and perhaps not even all of these). Both are a mine of data - and details - and the Artic. coaches particularly seem designed to trip up the unwary. They do contain lots of drawings, pictures and lists, including numbers, if you wished to align these to prototype. As you intimate however, it's difficult to read these anyway as the coaches wizz round the layout!

 

You mention a Mailcoach kit in your final sentence, and I take my hat off to you if you've completed one of these - I can't for the life of me see how the painting is anything but a nightmare!

 

John.

[Wingman Mothergoose]

18 hours ago, John Tomlinson said:

Thanks for the post, these have turned out well and you seem to have achieved a quality finish.

 

I'm not sure why they are too short, unless they were intended as from the few diagrams on 55ft underframes. I understood from Clive Mortimore and Andy (Coulsdon Works) threads that there is an issue with the number of doors in the Brake part of the kit for the single Brake Third, which doesn't correspond to the Brake Third in the Artic pair. However the Third - Third and First - Third should be fine from the single coaches, as advised by contributors above.

 

As it happens I'm in process of finishing a single Kirk Composite at the moment - later today I should be fitting the Turnbuckle underframe rods and Battery boxes, both of which I'm doing from MJT bits. The Dia. 242 Artic. is correct with angle trussing, although examples posted elsewhere (on Wright Writes) by Andrew (Headstock), suggest that it can be embellished quite a bit from what's in the kit.

 

I do have a couple of books by Michael Harris, one is blue and covers LNER coaches generally, the second is brown and bigger, and covers the Gresley designs (and perhaps not even all of these). Both are a mine of data - and details - and the Artic. coaches particularly seem designed to trip up the unwary. They do contain lots of drawings, pictures and lists, including numbers, if you wished to align these to prototype. As you intimate however, it's difficult to read these anyway as the coaches wizz round the layout!

 

You mention a Mailcoach kit in your final sentence, and I take my hat off to you if you've completed one of these - I can't for the life of me see how the painting is anything but a nightmare!

 

John.

 

Hi John,

The under frames are to short as they're the underframes meant for single suburban coaches, the ones on the articulated stock are a fair bit longer, something I will change once I have enough MJT parts.

You'll have to show me how you did the turnbuckle underframe kit, as that's something I want to attempt too, maybe on my next twin set if I do another. I used the angle trussing as it was easier to do. 

The Harris books are something I hadn't actually thought about owning, but now I've built or converted several coaches I think the time has come to do my own research, including using the correct numbers in future. 

The first twin set I did was a First/Third, with the correct length underframes, but I omitted the !st class numbers on the doors, something I may change soon.

Thought I'd add this photo of the Third/Third brake and the First/Third on my layout, I was using them to test the newly laid curves. I'd set the articulation gaps to negotiate the old curves on my layout which were fairly tight, but since moving house and being given a fairly roomy garage for the railway room I've had more space to ease the curves somewhat and now the twin sets look better as the gap doesn't close up so much. 

 

Speaking of Mailcoach kits, I did buy the Beavertail observation car kit off eBay a while back, but after hearing all the horror stories about how poor a fit the parts are and how much of a pain it is to paint I decided to sell it on. I used to Coronation style pin system to articulate the first few twin sets because I didn't have the parts to do it the other way! 

 

Chris G

 

[Wingman Mothergoose]

On 24/04/2020 at 12:41, MikeTrice said:

4

 

Hello Mike,

I recently watched with interest your YouTube videos on applying teak livery to LNER coaches. 

I'm going to have a go at the teak livery myself in the coming weeks, but using Phoenix paints instead. Will be the first time I've attempted any livery but BR crimson or maroon, and I'm looking forward to the challenge! First thought I need to find a way of stripping the paint from a scrap coach I recently purchased...

 

Chris G

[John Tomlinson]

3 hours ago, Wingman Mothergoose said:

 

Hi John,

The under frames are to short as they're the underframes meant for single suburban coaches, the ones on the articulated stock are a fair bit longer, something I will change once I have enough MJT parts.

You'll have to show me how you did the turnbuckle underframe kit, as that's something I want to attempt too, maybe on my next twin set if I do another. I used the angle trussing as it was easier to do. 

The Harris books are something I hadn't actually thought about owning, but now I've built or converted several coaches I think the time has come to do my own research, including using the correct numbers in future. 

The first twin set I did was a First/Third, with the correct length underframes, but I omitted the !st class numbers on the doors, something I may change soon.

Thought I'd add this photo of the Third/Third brake and the First/Third on my layout, I was using them to test the newly laid curves. I'd set the articulation gaps to negotiate the old curves on my layout which were fairly tight, but since moving house and being given a fairly roomy garage for the railway room I've had more space to ease the curves somewhat and now the twin sets look better as the gap doesn't close up so much. 

 

Speaking of Mailcoach kits, I did buy the Beavertail observation car kit off eBay a while back, but after hearing all the horror stories about how poor a fit the parts are and how much of a pain it is to paint I decided to sell it on. I used to Coronation style pin system to articulate the first few twin sets because I didn't have the parts to do it the other way! 

 

Chris G

 

Hi Chris,

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

When you talk about "underframe", I think we've been a bit at cross purposes, as I suspect you mean the angle iron or turnbuckle trussing below the solebars, not the actual length of the chassis itself. As discussed above, many of the diagrams for the suburban articulated stock are on 51ft chassis, the same as the single coaches. There are a few on 55ft ones, Andy (Coulson Works) and Andrew (Headstock) have done Dia.210 which fall into this category. This is why it is accurate to use the Kirk single coaches in some cases and articulate them - as indeed you have done! I mentioned above, as did Clive Mortimore further up the page, there is an issue with the single 4 compartment Brake 3rd, as this doesn't correspond to the Brake 3rd used in articulated sets because of different parcels doors arrangements. Ian Kirk kindly confirmed above that Third - Third and First - Third are fine with his kits.

 

The turnbuckle or angle iron underframes appear  too short if taken from the 51ft kits, which I suspect is your point, as the Artics used 61ft style in order that it goes further along towards the centre bogie. So for a turnbuckle arrangement on 51ft artics you'd need the MJT 61ft pack, and as NDN questioned above the artics use all four rods, not just two as on the single coaches. I had a go with my MJT turnbuckles yesterday, they simply fit per the instructions in the pack and the work can be done easily simply using superglue - you don't need to solder anything, and indeed on a plastic kit the further away the soldering iron the better, in my hands anyway!

 

Looking at your photos the Third - Third looks about right in length of the trussing, although I think for this type it should probably be turnbuckles. The Third - Brake Third may be a bit short in length of trussing, but I can't see that clearly from the picture. Your approach to setting distances between vehicles is exactly the same as mine, given that 99.99% of model railways have too tight curves, we need to get the space between as small as possible.

 

Did I read somewhere else a question about using the MJT grab rails which are vertical by the doors? I would recommend this from my limited experience. I retro fitted them to a couple of gangwayed Kirks many years after they were originally made, with a great enhancement of appearance. Thankfully Mr. Gresley's panelling gives us a clear reference point for the holes to be drilled - carefully by hand - and there's no need for marking lines on an already painted finish. The holes required are to the right of the door, just to the left of the two upper horizontal beads.

 

Best wishes,

 

John.

[Clive Mortimore]

When cutting out the sides for my Hertford quad art, I used a BG side for the brake compartment. I was wondering if that is an option for the brake end for the 4 compartment third brake of the twins? 

[Wingman Mothergoose]

1 hour ago, John Tomlinson said:

Hi Chris,

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

When you talk about "underframe", I think we've been a bit at cross purposes, as I suspect you mean the angle iron or turnbuckle trussing below the solebars, not the actual length of the chassis itself. As discussed above, many of the diagrams for the suburban articulated stock are on 51ft chassis, the same as the single coaches. There are a few on 55ft ones, Andy (Coulson Works) and Andrew (Headstock) have done Dia.210 which fall into this category. This is why it is accurate to use the Kirk single coaches in some cases and articulate them - as indeed you have done! I mentioned above, as did Clive Mortimore further up the page, there is an issue with the single 4 compartment Brake 3rd, as this doesn't correspond to the Brake 3rd used in articulated sets because of different parcels doors arrangements. Ian Kirk kindly confirmed above that Third - Third and First - Third are fine with his kits.

 

The turnbuckle or angle iron underframes appear  too short if taken from the 51ft kits, which I suspect is your point, as the Artics used 61ft style in order that it goes further along towards the centre bogie. So for a turnbuckle arrangement on 51ft artics you'd need the MJT 61ft pack, and as NDN questioned above the artics use all four rods, not just two as on the single coaches. I had a go with my MJT turnbuckles yesterday, they simply fit per the instructions in the pack and the work can be done easily simply using superglue - you don't need to solder anything, and indeed on a plastic kit the further away the soldering iron the better, in my hands anyway!

 

Looking at your photos the Third - Third looks about right in length of the trussing, although I think for this type it should probably be turnbuckles. The Third - Brake Third may be a bit short in length of trussing, but I can't see that clearly from the picture. Your approach to setting distances between vehicles is exactly the same as mine, given that 99.99% of model railways have too tight curves, we need to get the space between as small as possible.

 

Did I read somewhere else a question about using the MJT grab rails which are vertical by the doors? I would recommend this from my limited experience. I retro fitted them to a couple of gangwayed Kirks many years after they were originally made, with a great enhancement of appearance. Thankfully Mr. Gresley's panelling gives us a clear reference point for the holes to be drilled - carefully by hand - and there's no need for marking lines on an already painted finish. The holes required are to the right of the door, just to the left of the two upper horizontal beads.

 

Best wishes,

 

John.

Hi John,

You're correct, I used the 51ft underframe trusses that came with the single coach kits on a couple of my conversions, before I realised they were wrong. The Third/Third came with the truss underframes, but one was broken on the sprue so I used an MJT 61ft angle iron truss underframe kit instead. If the turnbuckle truss kits have instructions with them then I think I will definitely have a go with one on my next kit, or even retrofit them to the twin sets with the shorter 51ft underframe trusses. I was secretly hoping that only 2 of the turnbuckle trusses would be required, so I could be thrifty and use the 2 left over on another coach! 

I think I did ask on the Gresley Junction thread about grab rails, would I be right in assuming apart from guard's door handrails MJT just supply a jig to make the grab rails and the modeller has to supply the wire? No idea what size of wire would be appropriate, but my wife uses a lot of copper wire to make her own jewellery so I'll have a plentiful supply! I'll try it on one of my poorer efforts first to see how good a job I do.

 

Chris

 

[jwealleans]

I only ever put the outside trusses on my carriages as you'd have to be at track level or lower to see the inner ones.

 

MJT do two separate etches for handrails - one for the guards type, which will do one or two vehicles and another with what are called commode handles for passenger doors.  You'll need both for a brake coach.   Have a look at almost any of the LNER/GNR carriages on my thread, I use them all the time.   The two 6 wheelers I built recently would be a good example.  I think they make the largest visual difference to a Kirk kit.