Gresley Dia.242 Artic stock, from Kirk kits

[John Tomlinson]

1 hour ago, Wingman Mothergoose said:

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

 

As Jonathan says, it's a lot easier than getting your own wire for the commode handles! The product contains both the handles and a folding guide.

 

The MJT etch for these is a truly excellent piece of design. Normally folds are half etched and produce a weak point - it doesn't matter if it's then soldered but items this small are quite difficult to solder up the fold and then make them look decent. MJT have a fold point determined by little circles in the etch - this will make more sense when you have one in front of you - and this is sufficient to encourage the fold to be in the right place, but not enough to seriously weaken the end result.

 

Good idea of Clive's re. the BG doors, sadly I don't have one to try.

 

John.

[Wingman Mothergoose]

1 hour ago, jwealleans said:

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.

The commode handles are the door handles aren't they? Just on the MJT page now looking at the kits, there's one for door handles that has a bending jig for making up the grab handles from suitable wire

 

Chris

[jwealleans]

It does... I've never used it, I'm afraid.   I just bend them in a pair of pliers.

 

You'd have to flatten the wire for it to be the right shape and even then it's not as good (or usually as regular) as Mike's etched ones.

[Wingman Mothergoose]

19 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

As Jonathan says, it's a lot easier than getting your own wire for the commode handles! The product contains both the handles and a folding guide.

 

The MJT etch for these is a truly excellent piece of design. Normally folds are half etched and produce a weak point - it doesn't matter if it's then soldered but items this small are quite difficult to solder up the fold and then make them look decent. MJT have a fold point determined by little circles in the etch - this will make more sense when you have one in front of you - and this is sufficient to encourage the fold to be in the right place, but not enough to seriously weaken the end result.

 

Good idea of Clive's re. the BG doors, sadly I don't have one to try.

 

John.

It looks like the MJT etch is door handles and a bending jig to make your own grab handles from wire. Not really that much if an issue though. If my finances this month stretch to it I may order a couple of etches and have a go, and also try and steady my hand enough to get a dab of gold paint on the moulded door handles on the Kirk coaches. 

participating in this thread is actually inspiring me to do more to the Kirk coaches than I normally would have done. 

 

Chris

 

[John Tomlinson]

6 minutes ago, Wingman Mothergoose said:

It looks like the MJT etch is door handles and a bending jig to make your own grab handles from wire. Not really that much if an issue though. If my finances this month stretch to it I may order a couple of etches and have a go, and also try and steady my hand enough to get a dab of gold paint on the moulded door handles on the Kirk coaches. 

participating in this thread is actually inspiring me to do more to the Kirk coaches than I normally would have done. 

 

Chris

 

The part references are 2816 for the passenger door handles (commode handles), and 2817 for the handrails around the Guard's compartment - which includes duckets.

 

The picture of 2816 on the website doesn't show the whole product that you get, unless they've changed it since I last bought some a year or so ago (which I doubt).

 

John.

[Wingman Mothergoose]

As an aside, I did experiment with fitting one Kirk Gresley suburban coach with MJT sprung buffers. It mostly worked, but I was a bit too heavy handed glueing one of them to the coach and the casting broke while I was trying to free it off! Not deterred me though, I will try it again on the next kit I build or I may upgrade one of the twin sets with them.

 

Chris

[Wingman Mothergoose]

2 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

The part references are 2816 for the passenger door handles (commode handles), and 2817 for the handrails around the Guard's compartment - which includes duckets.

 

The picture of 2816 on the website doesn't show the whole product that you get, unless they've changed it since I last bought some a year or so ago (which I doubt).

 

John.

I see. I'm going to order some and see how I get on with them then!

 

Chris

[John Tomlinson]

4 minutes ago, Wingman Mothergoose said:

I see. I'm going to order some and see how I get on with them then!

 

Chris

Hi Chris,

 

I've slightly mislead you with my last post.

 

Ref. 2816 has two items on the etch. First are the little door handles, the things you turn to open the door, and second are the handrails that sit vertically to the right of each door and allow people to support themselves getting in and out. The second of these are etched around the first. It is the second of these, the handrails, that need to be bent to enable them to be inserted into holes you've drilled in the coach side, and for this bending purpose there is a jig included. As Jonathan says, it's actually quite simple to just use your pliers, rather than the jig.

 

I think it will make more sense when they arrive - good luck!!

 

John.

[Wingman Mothergoose]

17 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

Hi Chris,

 

I've slightly mislead you with my last post.

 

Ref. 2816 has two items on the etch. First are the little door handles, the things you turn to open the door, and second are the handrails that sit vertically to the right of each door and allow people to support themselves getting in and out. The second of these are etched around the first. It is the second of these, the handrails, that need to be bent to enable them to be inserted into holes you've drilled in the coach side, and for this bending purpose there is a jig included. As Jonathan says, it's actually quite simple to just use your pliers, rather than the jig.

 

I think it will make more sense when they arrive - good luck!!

 

John.

I've ordered a set of Guards door handles, grab handles and a set of the cast double battery boxes, to add a tiny bit more weight to one of my twin sets.

See what you've made me do?! ;-) 

 

Chris

[jwealleans]

You'll never look back, Chris.

[Wingman Mothergoose]

I do have a bit of a curve ball for you.

Is it possible to convert a pair of Ian Kirk Gresley suburban coaches into a push pull set? And if so, what work is required to do so, and which locos would be suitable to push/pull it?

 

Chris

[jwealleans]

I'm not sure you need a pair - wasn't it only the brake end which converted to a driving compartment?   Off the top of my head the major visible difference is that there are two windows each side in the brake end.   If you get hold of a copy of the brown Harris book ('LNER Standard Gresley Carriages'), there's a drawing in there.   The Guards door is also labelled 'Driver' (obvs).

 

I think Ian did a push-pull kit and i also think someone on here has built one.

 

Edit - try this thread as a starter.

Edited May 7, 2020 by jwealleans
Add thread link.

[Wingman Mothergoose]

6 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

I'm not sure you need a pair - wasn't it only the brake end which converted to a driving compartment?   Off the top of my head the major visible difference is that there are two windows each side in the brake end.   If you get hold of a copy of the brown Harris book ('LNER Standard Gresley Carriages'), there's a drawing in there.   The Guards door is also labelled 'Driver' (obvs).

 

I think Ian did a push-pull kit and i also think someone on here has built one.

Think I recall seeing a Kirk push/pull kit a while back on eBay, but sadly missed out on it. Think I have more than enough Kirk Gresley suburban coaches now that I won't miss two of them if I put them 'into works' for conversion into a push pul set. The Harris book is on my list, but it doesn't seem to be cheap at the moment!

 

Chris

[Paul Cram]

Yes Kirk did a push pull coach.

[Ken.W]

On 25/04/2020 at 13:21, jwealleans said:

I believe it's because the carriages were specified by the regions and the CME had to supply what they requested.  .  Carriages were modular, so it was relatively easy to specify different combinations of compartments and lavs as long as the underframe length was respected.  

 

From what I've read in the Harris books, agree that was the case.

The stock was effectively owned by the six areas / sections, each specifiying to their own requirements, and the East Coast stock operated as another independent fleet.

This led to a situation where the areas / sections were ordering replacement vehicles on a like for like basis, and often for the needs of specific services, hence brake ends with anything from 3 to 6 compartments depending on parcels etc requirements, and also the continuation of building corridor stock with exterior compartment doors later than generally on other railways, as they were seemingly favoured for the shorter distance / more frequent stops pattern of internal area services for ease of quicker boarding / alighting..

There would have still been a large degree of standardisation of parts though, as standard compartment dimensions were largely adhered to, hence the 'coupe', or half, compartment in CKs

By the time the post-war stock came along, war-time conditions had caused a change to centralised control of stock, and hence easier standardisation of types.

 

On 22/04/2020 at 20:08, Clive Mortimore said:

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.

 

For Brake Third Twins discussion's been on the unsuitability of the Kirk 4-compartment BT

 

A quick check of my Harris book, most Brake Third Twins had a 5-compartment BT and...

such a kit (8837) did also exist in the Kirk range...

 

 

 

Nearing completion atm, with additional Comet parts and on Bachmann bogies

 

On 07/05/2020 at 11:52, Paul Cram said:

Yes Kirk did a push pull coach.

 

On the brake sides and end here you can see the alterations from the standard kit

 

 

Regarding underframe fittings, both the BT (above) and a BTO, also near completion, have had additional parts from Comet added

 

The BT.

The turnbuckle truss rodding's cross pieces with queen posts, obviously designed for etched kits, were too wide to fit between the thicker plastic solebars of the Kirk kit and had to be cut through the middle and filed out in the top corners to fit. The Comet etch provides one 51' pair and one 61'6 pair.

On Bachmann bogies.

 

The BTO

I looked at fitting MJT angle iron trusses to this, but again the cross pieces were too wide to fit between the plastic solebars. The kit's trussing was therefore used, with the crossing bracing added from square plastic rodding.

On the new Isinglass 3D resin-print bogies.

[Wingman Mothergoose]

I had the opposite experience with the MJT trussing, I found it was too narrow to fit between the solebars on the Kirk Gresley suburban kits I’ve built recently, so abandoned fitting the bracing. Nobody is going to see it anyway so it doesn’t matter too much. 
I’ve not attempted a turnbuckle underframe yet, mainly due to them being out of stock at Dart Castings and not having enough money to buy much recently! 
 

Chris

[Headstock]

3 hours ago, Wingman Mothergoose said:

I had the opposite experience with the MJT trussing, I found it was too narrow to fit between the solebars on the Kirk Gresley suburban kits I’ve built recently, so abandoned fitting the bracing. Nobody is going to see it anyway so it doesn’t matter too much. 
I’ve not attempted a turnbuckle underframe yet, mainly due to them being out of stock at Dart Castings and not having enough money to buy much recently! 
 

Chris

 

Good morning Chris,

 

the MJT components are spot on for the turnbuckle arrangement. Having crawled over the underside of a number of carriages and ex NPC underframes, the turnbuckle and needle beam arrangement is a beautiful scale replica of the real thing. The Kirk components are miles out in terms of the positioning of the sole bars, I have repositioned them and filed them back on the rear surface, so that they are thin enough to receive underframe components where they should be.

 

The Comet components are pretty generic, non of them really look like the real LNER gubbins, they famously misread the strapping on a drawing that supports the battery boxes, as a gap that divided the cabinet that contains the battery boxes into two parts. The battery boxes are far to close to the turnbuckles in the photo of the carriage up thread, and they are missing the support stapping. There should also be another set of battery boxes (contained in a single wooden cabinet) on the opposite side of this carriage and the one with the angle iron trussing. If you look at the MJT products for the angle iron arrangement, it will show you the correct arrangement of the cross trussing. One thing to consider is that the angle iron was angle iron, not square rod. It would be better to use an L shape section rather than square rod to produce this.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Headstock
clarify a point

[Headstock]

 

Many people find this photo of use.  One of the things that people consistently get wrong on LNER carriages is the battery box arrangement. It is common to see the battery boxes mounted LMS style, butted up to the horizontal angle iron as support. The LNER arrangement was mounted inboard of the solebars and had its own strapping and cradle independent of the horizontal angle iron, but supported by the cross trussing. The arrangement for the turnbuckle arrangement was very similar, with needle beams replacing the Queen posts.

 

Edited May 24, 2020 by Headstock
clarify a point

[John Tomlinson]

9 hours ago, Ken.W said:

 

From what I've read in the Harris books, agree that was the case.

The stock was effectively owned by the six areas / sections, each specifiying to their own requirements, and the East Coast stock operated as another independent fleet.

This led to a situation where the areas / sections were ordering replacement vehicles on a like for like basis, and often for the needs of specific services, hence brake ends with anything from 3 to 6 compartments depending on parcels etc requirements, and also the continuation of building corridor stock with exterior compartment doors later than generally on other railways, as they were seemingly favoured for the shorter distance / more frequent stops pattern of internal area services for ease of quicker boarding / alighting..

There would have still been a large degree of standardisation of parts though, as standard compartment dimensions were largely adhered to, hence the 'coupe', or half, compartment in CKs

By the time the post-war stock came along, war-time conditions had caused a change to centralised control of stock, and hence easier standardisation of types.

 

 

For Brake Third Twins discussion's been on the unsuitability of the Kirk 4-compartment BT

 

A quick check of my Harris book, most Brake Third Twins had a 5-compartment BT and...

such a kit (8837) did also exist in the Kirk range...

 

 

 

Nearing completion atm, with additional Comet parts and on Bachmann bogies

 

 

On the brake sides and end here you can see the alterations from the standard kit

 

 

Regarding underframe fittings, both the BT (above) and a BTO, also near completion, have had additional parts from Comet added

 

The BT.

The turnbuckle truss rodding's cross pieces with queen posts, obviously designed for etched kits, were too wide to fit between the thicker plastic solebars of the Kirk kit and had to be cut through the middle and filed out in the top corners to fit. The Comet etch provides one 51' pair and one 61'6 pair.

On Bachmann bogies.

 

The BTO

I looked at fitting MJT angle iron trusses to this, but again the cross pieces were too wide to fit between the plastic solebars. The kit's trussing was therefore used, with the crossing bracing added from square plastic rodding.

On the new Isinglass 3D resin-print bogies.

Many thanks for posting this very informative note.

 

One thing that has puzzled me for a while looking at photos and drawings, is the apparent absence of the pair of vacuum tanks on some coaches. These are the cylinders running longitudinally between the vacuum brake apparatus and the battery box on your BTO model above, but absent on the BT - the one with the trussing rather than angle irons. Is there a reason for this?

 

Many thanks,

 

John.

[Headstock]

19 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

Many thanks for posting this very informative note.

 

One thing that has puzzled me for a while looking at photos and drawings, is the apparent absence of the pair of vacuum tanks on some coaches. These are the cylinders running longitudinally between the vacuum brake apparatus and the battery box on your BTO model above, but absent on the BT - the one with the trussing rather than angle irons. Is there a reason for this?

 

Many thanks,

 

John.

 

Good morning John,

 

on the ones I have seen, they were in line, out of sight between the port and starboard battery boxes.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Headstock

[Bucoops]

From what I have read - and  backing it up with photographic evidence so far is proving elusive - the 52ft6" coaches built for the GE section rarely if ever had them. I've not really looked into the 51ft suburbans (same underframe) to see if they have them.

[Ken.W]

2 hours ago, John Tomlinson said:

Many thanks for posting this very informative note.

 

One thing that has puzzled me for a while looking at photos and drawings, is the apparent absence of the pair of vacuum tanks on some coaches. These are the cylinders running longitudinally between the vacuum brake apparatus and the battery box on your BTO model above, but absent on the BT - the one with the trussing rather than angle irons. Is there a reason for this?

 

Many thanks,

 

John.

Thanks John,

 

Those two coaches are actually the first Kirk kits that I've attempted detailing the underframe, on previous models I've simply used the Kirk parts.

 

On the BT, being the shorter 51' underframe, I found there was insufficient space to fit the vacuum reserviors between the brake V-hangers - with the cylinders located by the moulded positions on the floor - and either the battery box or the cross piece for locating the queen post etch, and in photos of 51' stock in the Harris book I was using I was unable to see them fitted.

This kit, btw, has been 'modified' by fitting the van sides the opposite way around and filling the end windows to make a Dia.62 (1 batch, built 1925) which had the guard's position at the inner end adjacent to the compartments (LNER Coaches, p62).

 

For the battery boxes, the kit instructions for both types specified on one side only, and also the Comet LNER underframe details set provided for just one pair of boxes. I'm aware the catering vehicles being electrically powered had extra battery boxes, but the information for other stock has always seemed vague, in photos some do be appear to have them both sides, but generally it's not possible to tell.

 

On the BTO, while I'm aware the cross bracing should really be L section, the square's all I have at present in the current situation, plus I'd found it necessary to use Kirk trusses which are also square section anyway instead of the MJT as intended as they didn't fit with the Kirk solebars. It does still give a reasonable representation from normal viewing distance rather than nothing at all which previous builds have had.

 

[jwealleans]

I believe it's the case that until the 1930s, carriages ran using one pair of batteries for lights, etc while the other pair charged.   Then someone came up with a device to allow them to charge at the same time as being used and so the second battery box became redundant.   I don't know that the change was ever made retrospective, though, so I'd err on the side of saying you need both pairs of battery boxes on your BT.   BGs only had one pair of boxes but they were only powering a very few lights in the van.

 

If you can get hold of the Isinglass drawing for what you're building, or the Nick Campling volume of Historic Carriage Drawings, I'd suggest they might be a more reliable source of information.

 

Good idea for a D62, I might well pinch that (if any were ever allocated to the GE Area).

[Ken.W]

1 hour ago, jwealleans said:

I believe it's the case that until the 1930s, carriages ran using one pair of batteries for lights, etc while the other pair charged.   Then someone came up with a device to allow them to charge at the same time as being used and so the second battery box became redundant.   I don't know that the change was ever made retrospective, though, so I'd err on the side of saying you need both pairs of battery boxes on your BT.   BGs only had one pair of boxes but they were only powering a very few lights in the van.

 

If you can get hold of the Isinglass drawing for what you're building, or the Nick Campling volume of Historic Carriage Drawings, I'd suggest they might be a more reliable source of information.

 

Good idea for a D62, I might well pinch that (if any were ever allocated to the GE Area).

 

Thanks Jonathan,

It had puzzled me as to why a vehicle which had electric basically just for lighting would require two sets of batteries.

I'd not found the Campling book particularly helpful for underframe fittings, as it gives a single drawing from one side for all the standard stock with no plan view.

 

No need to pinch the D.62 idea, you're welcome to it. Seeing it in the Harris book, it just occurred that it was basically a 'cut n shut' job, with the cut bit already done.

I've no info on carriage allocations. From the Harris book though the pre-'43 numbers were all 3xxx indicating Southern Scottish Area, however the one in the photo was captured at York in BR days and with an E prefix so some did move around.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Ken.W

[Bucoops]

1 hour ago, jwealleans said:

I believe it's the case that until the 1930s, carriages ran using one pair of batteries for lights, etc while the other pair charged.   Then someone came up with a device to allow them to charge at the same time as being used and so the second battery box became redundant.   I don't know that the change was ever made retrospective, though, so I'd err on the side of saying you need both pairs of battery boxes on your BT.   BGs only had one pair of boxes but they were only powering a very few lights in the van.

 

If you can get hold of the Isinglass drawing for what you're building, or the Nick Campling volume of Historic Carriage Drawings, I'd suggest they might be a more reliable source of information.

 

Good idea for a D62, I might well pinch that (if any were ever allocated to the GE Area).

 

Interesting info on the battery boxes - thank you I didn't know that.

 

Hugh Longworth's book shows all the D62s at Nationalisation were Scottish allocated.