Gresley Dia.242 Artic stock, from Kirk kits

[jwealleans]

Quote

Interesting info on the battery boxes

 

Hopefully someone will confirm that it's right - I can't remember where I read or was told it.

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, Ken.W said:

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.

 

 

Good afternoon Ken,

 

your conversion work on the Kirk kit into dia 62 looks very smart, I have photographs of both sides of the real carriage, they had battery boxes on both sides and retained them to scrapping. I doubt if they were retrofitted with a single box charger, as described by Jonathan, or the LNER would have whipped off a set and reused them elsewhere. Why two sets of battery boxes? Basically, they were not very efficient and the carriages would have required a larger network of charging points than the LNER were prepared to provide.

 

I am unable to upload the photographs without permission from the copyright holders. If something can be sorted, I will let you know. In the meantime, a rather poor quality image of the other side of a dia 62, from that you have seen, is posted below. The battery boxes are evident.

 

It would not be unreasonable to think of the later non gangway stock, with angle iron trussing, to  have single side battery boxes only, but with a regulator box on the side were the second set of battery boxes were on earlier stock. The Thompson stock followed suit. I hope that is of help.

 

Edited May 24, 2020 by Headstock
add info

[BR60103]

Thanks for an interesting thread.

I've started on my store of Kirk kits during this Isolating. I'm very short of good documentation and it's tricky to find in Canada.

I've completed (but not lettered) a pair of full brakes and have the 3rd, semi-corridor composite, and 3rd-3rd twin in process. I think the twin was second hand as the floors were missing.

 

[Ken.W]

 

Been a while, sorry, since I updated on this, but I did get this pair finished - well almost, theyre still waiting for the passengers to socially un-distance so the roofs can be fixed on! Finally got some pics ready to upload.

 

The BT, thanks to info kindly provided above, has gained it's second set of battery boxes, set further in. The original set though, I found are too firmly glued to move further in-board, I'd been unsure of how far they should be set back, again until info provided above. Having just used the 'flat' Kirk boxes previously, they'd needed to be against the trusses for support.

 

The BTO, being a later angle iron trussed type, has retained it's single set of batteries.

 

Both have the brake ends detailed to form the rear of the train - dummy couplings, pipes, and tail lamp.

 

 

[Headstock]

On 08/07/2020 at 00:06, Ken.W said:

 

Been a while, sorry, since I updated on this, but I did get this pair finished - well almost, theyre still waiting for the passengers to socially un-distance so the roofs can be fixed on! Finally got some pics ready to upload.

 

The BT, thanks to info kindly provided above, has gained it's second set of battery boxes, set further in. The original set though, I found are too firmly glued to move further in-board, I'd been unsure of how far they should be set back, again until info provided above. Having just used the 'flat' Kirk boxes previously, they'd needed to be against the trusses for support.

 

The BTO, being a later angle iron trussed type, has retained it's single set of batteries.

 

Both have the brake ends detailed to form the rear of the train - dummy couplings, pipes, and tail lamp.

 

 

 

Good evening Ken,

 

your BT (5) has turned out rather well, I think that it looks better than the recent Isinglass example. Even at three quarter view, the extra battery boxes are visible, well worth your effort . Just to annoy you however, your BTO (BSO) should also have battery boxes on both sides. In terms of distance, the front face of the battery boxes were located about 1' or 4MM in from the front face of the angle iron.  

[Ken.W]

On 09/07/2020 at 19:45, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Ken,

 

your BT (5) has turned out rather well, I think that it looks better than the recent Isinglass example. Even at three quarter view, the extra battery boxes are visible, well worth your effort . Just to annoy you however, your BTO (BSO) should also have battery boxes on both sides. In terms of distance, the front face of the battery boxes were located about 1' or 4MM in from the front face of the angle iron.  

 

Good evening Andrew,

 

Thanks for your comments on the BT. I used the info from our photo posted earlier to position the additional battery boxes about 4mm in from the trussing, the original set though seem too firmly stuck to alter now, being whitemetal to plastic theyre superglued on, but it seems are also glued to the brass crosspieces of the trussing etch so risks damaging them if removed.

 

On the BTO, no not annoyed at all. As I've said these are the first I've attempted to detail rather than just using the Kirk kit parts, so extra info's useful. Just a bit confused now though;

I understand now that two sets of batterys were fitted, until the 30s when the regulators were introduced allowing just a single set to be used. It was also said earlier regarding the BT that non-corridors with angle iron trussing could be reasonably expected to have one set;

The BTO's a dia.191 of 1935, also with angle trussing, so assumed it would also have a single set of batterys?

[Headstock]

12 hours ago, Ken.W said:

 

Good evening Andrew,

 

Thanks for your comments on the BT. I used the info from our photo posted earlier to position the additional battery boxes about 4mm in from the trussing, the original set though seem too firmly stuck to alter now, being whitemetal to plastic theyre superglued on, but it seems are also glued to the brass crosspieces of the trussing etch so risks damaging them if removed.

 

On the BTO, no not annoyed at all. As I've said these are the first I've attempted to detail rather than just using the Kirk kit parts, so extra info's useful. Just a bit confused now though;

I understand now that two sets of batterys were fitted, until the 30s when the regulators were introduced allowing just a single set to be used. It was also said earlier regarding the BT that non-corridors with angle iron trussing could be reasonably expected to have one set;

The BTO's a dia.191 of 1935, also with angle trussing, so assumed it would also have a single set of batterys?

 

Morning Ken,

 

the thing to remember is that the batteries were inside the boxes, they could be removed leaving the boxes in place on the underframe. The retrofitting of regulator boxes must have been pretty patchy on existing Gresley gangway carriages, I don't think I have a single photograph of one so fitted, with one set of battery boxes removed. Perhaps the regulator was fitted inside the existing empty box?

Edited July 11, 2020 by Headstock

[Ken.W]

9 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Morning Ken,

 

the thing to remember is that the batteries were inside the boxes, they could be removed leaving the boxes in place on the underframe. The retrofitting of regulator boxes must have been pretty patchy on existing Gresley gangway carriages, I don't think I have a single photograph of one so fitted, with one set of battery boxes removed. Perhaps the regulator was fitted inside the existing empty box?

 

Thanks for your reply Andrew.

I was thinking though, from what had been posted previously, that from when regulators were developed in the 30s stock built subsequently would have them fitted, and thus one set of batteries, from new?

As a later vehicle with angle iron trussing I though that would apply to this one. I've seen pictures of non-corridor stock from the same period with just one battery set.

[Headstock]

14 hours ago, Ken.W said:

 

Thanks for your reply Andrew.

I was thinking though, from what had been posted previously, that from when regulators were developed in the 30s stock built subsequently would have them fitted, and thus one set of batteries, from new?

As a later vehicle with angle iron trussing I though that would apply to this one. I've seen pictures of non-corridor stock from the same period with just one battery set.

 

Good morning Ken,

 

I agree as regards some stock. For example, last year I built a late thirties dia. 120 BT-CL twin. It had battery boxes on one side only and a single regulator box located on the opposite side of the BT. In contrast, I built end door gangway carriages, constructed in the late thirties and used in the Master Cutler in the late forties/early fifties. They had battery boxes on both sides. When the Thompson gangway stock arrived in the late forties, only one set of battery boxes was provided with a regulator box on the other side.

 

I can't find any evidence of retrofitting to earlier gangway or non gangway carriages. At present, I can't find any evidence that the fitting of regulators to new gangway stock, allowed for a reduction in battery boxes, prior to the introduction of the new Thompson stock. Perhaps the extra storage capacity was still regarded as desirable at that stage. You would have thought that Restaurant cars would be prime candidates for the removal of battery boxes, as they provided a great deal of the extra weight on these carriages, yet they clearly have regulator boxes fitted without any reduction in the number of dynamos or in battery box storage capacity.

[MikeTrice]

There were two charging systems on LNER Coaches, Stone's and Vickers. Stone's typically had two battery box containers and Vicker's one with regulator box. As time progressed the output of the various dynamos changed. From memory Stone's progressed from 12 volt to 24 volt systems.

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, MikeTrice said:

There were two charging systems on LNER Coaches, Stone's and Vickers. Stone's typically had two battery box containers and Vicker's one with regulator box. As time progressed the output of the various dynamos changed. From memory Stone's progressed from 12 volt to 24 volt systems.

 

Thanks Mike,

 

that clarifies things quite a bit.

[MikeTrice]

That will teach me not to check before posting. The Stone's system was initially available in 16 and 24 volts. It was ampage that increased over time.

[thegreenhowards]

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.

 

 

John,

 

I can’t believe that I’ve missed this thread until now - especially as Gresley Jn/ Coulsdon Works are mentioned from time to time. Anyway, I have a D.242 built from Kirk and MJT bits.

 

I acquired this from Expo EM in Bracknell as part of a job lot of half completed Kirk kits in P4. What had been built was very nicely done. I finished it off and converted It to 00. It came with the MJT underframe so I left it as is, even though for Gresley Jn (i.e. the GN) I should probably have one of the earlier D.124/126 type with truss rods. 

 

The door handrails are Hornby removed from a 61ft donor vehicle.

 

Andy

[thegreenhowards]

On 07/05/2020 at 08:27, Wingman Mothergoose said:

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

Chris,

 

The Kirk range does (did?) include a push pull brake as seen here on Gresley Jn.

 

 

I got the sides and ends for this from Coopercraft in the days when he was ignoring web sales but if you rang up and begged him then he would send you stuff he had in stock. The rest was from my ‘Kirk parts drawer’.

 

As others have alluded, push pulls are a minefield. There was a good article by Steve Banks in Model Rail Nov 2005 as part of his ‘Eastern Secondary Services in Transition’ series. These are all a good read and recommended if you can get hold of them. I have a spare of the Nov 2005 Push pull article. If you want it, PM me your postal address.

 

Andy

 

 

 

[John Tomlinson]

22 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

John,

 

I can’t believe that I’ve missed this thread until now - especially as Gresley Jn/ Coulsdon Works are mentioned from time to time. Anyway, I have a D.242 built from Kirk and MJT bits.

 

I acquired this from Expo EM in Bracknell as part of a job lot of half completed Kirk kits in P4. What had been built was very nicely done. I finished it off and converted It to 00. It came with the MJT underframe so I left it as is, even though for Gresley Jn (i.e. the GN) I should probably have one of the earlier D.124/126 type with truss rods. 

 

The door handrails are Hornby removed from a 61ft donor vehicle.

 

Andy

Andy, thanks for the post and the pictures, that's a very nice job indeed.

 

My own effort is now awaiting a couple of minor details before painting, I've done a Kirk Brake 3rd and a Composite to make a (not very plausible) rake. All with MJT detailing. I was going to put some pictures up but have been distracted by domestic issues this week, so maybe later.

 

Ther have been a lot of very valuable and informative posts in the last three pages, how lucky we are to be able to benefit from such a wealth of knowledge and a willingness to share it amongst our fellows.

 

John.

Edited July 14, 2020 by John Tomlinson
typo

[John Tomlinson]

My Dia.242 is now almost ready for the paintshops.

 

It needs the cross members on the underframe - I may have some plastic angle somewhere, but can't find it, plus the auxiliary boxes opposite to the battery boxes. I mounted the Battery boxes so as to be on opposite sides of the pair, evidence from the wise above suggests this is wrong so I'll change that at the same time and add the strapping. All the sides have been drilled for the two holes to take MJT handrails by the door handles, these will be added after painting.

 

I've done a couple of other Kirk suburbans at the same time, a Brake 3rd 4Compt. and a Composite. The whole lot are seen on my little test track below. An unlikely combination I know in the real world. These use the MJT brass trussing, and all use various MJT bits - roof vents, battery boxes, vacuum sets (not all).

 

The third picture is to show how I make the coaches, an underframe/ chassis, a separate floor with seating, and a five part bodyshell with roof and pairs of sides and ends. Nothing unusual there I'm sure, but helpful for paint spraying. The bodyshells I've made as a push fit on the chassis, and will add a tiny bit of weak glue on final assembly that means they can be undone if needed.

 

Thanks to all for your contributions to this thread, I've benefited hugely and hope others have found it useful too.

 

John.

[Headstock]

On 19/07/2020 at 17:02, John Tomlinson said:

My Dia.242 is now almost ready for the paintshops.

 

It needs the cross members on the underframe - I may have some plastic angle somewhere, but can't find it, plus the auxiliary boxes opposite to the battery boxes. I mounted the Battery boxes so as to be on opposite sides of the pair, evidence from the wise above suggests this is wrong so I'll change that at the same time and add the strapping. All the sides have been drilled for the two holes to take MJT handrails by the door handles, these will be added after painting.

 

I've done a couple of other Kirk suburbans at the same time, a Brake 3rd 4Compt. and a Composite. The whole lot are seen on my little test track below. An unlikely combination I know in the real world. These use the MJT brass trussing, and all use various MJT bits - roof vents, battery boxes, vacuum sets (not all).

 

The third picture is to show how I make the coaches, an underframe/ chassis, a separate floor with seating, and a five part bodyshell with roof and pairs of sides and ends. Nothing unusual there I'm sure, but helpful for paint spraying. The bodyshells I've made as a push fit on the chassis, and will add a tiny bit of weak glue on final assembly that means they can be undone if needed.

 

Thanks to all for your contributions to this thread, I've benefited hugely and hope others have found it useful too.

 

John.

 

Good evening John,

 

I like your demountable body approach towards the old Kirk kits, very wise. The angle iron definitely wants the cross trussing and supports, articulated stock can look quite bare with the individual components missing, plus it makes the whole thing stronger. The question is, does anybody actually have a photo od dia. 242, Andy of Howards and yourself seem to have different ideas on battery box arrangements on these carriages.

 

Re formations, I don't think that such a large amount of first class would be called for in four carriages, twin first third and two thirds would make more sense unless you had a larger formation, an extra BT-T twin with smaller van compartment for example.

[John Tomlinson]

Andrew,

 

Many thanks for your post.

 

I've been unable to find a picture of a Dia.242 that is remotely useful for details. However, looking at the Brown book by Harris on Gresley's coaches, pictures of the twin for the CLC, and another of I think Dia.214 at Manchester Victoria, do seem to show the battery boxes on different sides on the two coaches, and both are later production coaches with angle iron trussing. So I'm now thinking of leaving them where they are, just adding the smaller supplementary boxes on the other side that you noted in an earlier post. Pics in the Campling plans book of earlier types of twin when new do however seem to have the battery boxes on the same side on both coaches.

 

A bit silly really for me not to have an small plastic right angle for the cross pieces, I might nip down to my local model shop in Peterborough to try to get some. We've been pretty cautious in the last few months as we're both over 60 and my wife has a relevent health condition, but I'm sure a quick trip wouldn't hurt!

 

I've done push fit items in plastic before and it seems to work quite well, provided one is careful with the handling. I suspect for people like yourself with an exhibition layout this wouldn't be the case. With something in metal I'd just solder a bracket with a nut onto an end, to take a bolt to hold everything together.

 

I'm sure that you are right about the proportion of first class, I might add another third at some point, even buy one of the Hornby Thompsons that seem to me very good models indeed.

 

On another topic that might be of interest, I ordered a second Isinglass coach yesterday, the six wheel bogie Sheffield stock restaurant car. I asked if I could have the drawing for the modified vehicles, intending to attempt some butchery with plastic card, and to my delight Andy Edgson offered to print a kit for that version - I hadn't asked him to do so.  It may take a little while as he does the CAD, but when it comes I'll do a post.

 

John.

[thegreenhowards]

10 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening John,

 

I like your demountable body approach towards the old Kirk kits, very wise. The angle iron definitely wants the cross trussing and supports, articulated stock can look quite bare with the individual components missing, plus it makes the whole thing stronger. The question is, does anybody actually have a photo od dia. 242, Andy of Howards and yourself seem to have different ideas on battery box arrangements on these carriages.

 

Re formations, I don't think that such a large amount of first class would be called for in four carriages, twin first third and two thirds would make more sense unless you had a larger formation, an extra BT-T twin with smaller van compartment for example.

I agree about the train length point. These were built for Marylebone outer suburban services, Glasgow- Edinburgh (and their truss rod sisters for Kings Cross Outer suburban services). Harris states that the ‘earliest’ ones (I’m think this means the earlier Marylebone ones, but the KX ones were used like this as well) were used In eight coach formations of four artic pairs and the later Marylebone ones in five coach formations (Increased to six in BR days).

 

I seem to remember that the underframe was already built when I got these coaches secondhand and as what was done was so well executed, I probably left well alone. So don’t take mine as gospel in terms of underframe layout.

[thegreenhowards]

I

35 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

Andrew,

 

Many thanks for your post.

 

I've been unable to find a picture of a Dia.242 that is remotely useful for details. However, looking at the Brown book by Harris on Gresley's coaches, pictures of the twin for the CLC, and another of I think Dia.214 at Manchester Victoria, do seem to show the battery boxes on different sides on the two coaches, and both are later production coaches with angle iron trussing. So I'm now thinking of leaving them where they are, just adding the smaller supplementary boxes on the other side that you noted in an earlier post. Pics in the Campling plans book of earlier types of twin when new do however seem to have the battery boxes on the same side on both coaches.

 

A bit silly really for me not to have an small plastic right angle for the cross pieces, I might nip down to my local model shop in Peterborough to try to get some. We've been pretty cautious in the last few months as we're both over 60 and my wife has a relevent health condition, but I'm sure a quick trip wouldn't hurt!

 

I've done push fit items in plastic before and it seems to work quite well, provided one is careful with the handling. I suspect for people like yourself with an exhibition layout this wouldn't be the case. With something in metal I'd just solder a bracket with a nut onto an end, to take a bolt to hold everything together.

 

I'm sure that you are right about the proportion of first class, I might add another third at some point, even buy one of the Hornby Thompsons that seem to me very good models indeed.

 

On another topic that might be of interest, I ordered a second Isinglass coach yesterday, the six wheel bogie Sheffield stock restaurant car. I asked if I could have the drawing for the modified vehicles, intending to attempt some butchery with plastic card, and to my delight Andy Edgson offered to print a kit for that version - I hadn't asked him to do so.  It may take a little while as he does the CAD, but when it comes I'll do a post.

 

John.

Is that one of these a John?

 

if so, you may have seen my build written up on a Coulsdon Works. But if not, here is a link to the finished article.

 

[iak]

On 22/04/2020 at 20:08, 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.

 

CLC articulated stock...

Well that has made me sit up in a hurry. My stash of auld Kirk suburbans suddenly have a genuine use apart frae butchery into oddities...

There are some nice beasties on this thread mind.

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, John Tomlinson said:

Andrew,

 

Many thanks for your post.

 

I've been unable to find a picture of a Dia.242 that is remotely useful for details. However, looking at the Brown book by Harris on Gresley's coaches, pictures of the twin for the CLC, and another of I think Dia.214 at Manchester Victoria, do seem to show the battery boxes on different sides on the two coaches, and both are later production coaches with angle iron trussing. So I'm now thinking of leaving them where they are, just adding the smaller supplementary boxes on the other side that you noted in an earlier post. Pics in the Campling plans book of earlier types of twin when new do however seem to have the battery boxes on the same side on both coaches.

 

A bit silly really for me not to have an small plastic right angle for the cross pieces, I might nip down to my local model shop in Peterborough to try to get some. We've been pretty cautious in the last few months as we're both over 60 and my wife has a relevent health condition, but I'm sure a quick trip wouldn't hurt!

 

I've done push fit items in plastic before and it seems to work quite well, provided one is careful with the handling. I suspect for people like yourself with an exhibition layout this wouldn't be the case. With something in metal I'd just solder a bracket with a nut onto an end, to take a bolt to hold everything together.

 

I'm sure that you are right about the proportion of first class, I might add another third at some point, even buy one of the Hornby Thompsons that seem to me very good models indeed.

 

On another topic that might be of interest, I ordered a second Isinglass coach yesterday, the six wheel bogie Sheffield stock restaurant car. I asked if I could have the drawing for the modified vehicles, intending to attempt some butchery with plastic card, and to my delight Andy Edgson offered to print a kit for that version - I hadn't asked him to do so.  It may take a little while as he does the CAD, but when it comes I'll do a post.

 

John.

 

Good morning John,

 

if in doubt put you and your families health first, mail order and quarantine. Alternatively, you could also ring up your local shop, place the order and pay by phone and then go and collect, thus spending as little time as possible in the shop, or even collect at the door.

 

I assume you have received the photo of dia. 242 from Mike Trice, very kind of him. The battery box position is quite clear, any thoughts on the regulator box, or boxes?

 

The Hornby non gangway carriages are very good models, I would consider a second (numerical not class) brake at some point. In my neck of the woods it would be rare to find a set longer than three carriages operating with a single brake end. This usually occurred when a four carriage set with two brakes, became a three set with one brake. This being dependent on if it was operating as part of the Winter or Summer timetables.

 

I shall leave Isinglass for the time being, simply because I have enough projects to keep me going for a while. I don't like to accumulate lots of stuff, I find it counterproductive, but I shall be most interested to follow your experiences of constructing the kits.

[John Tomlinson]

59 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

I

Is that one of these a John?

 

if so, you may have seen my build written up on a Coulsdon Works. But if not, here is a link to the finished article.

 

It is indeed Andy, and it was your model on "Coulsdon Works" that made it register when I was looking through the Isinglass catalogue! The six axle bogies give them a lot of character I think.

 

As I said, I thought it would be interesting to see how far I could get modifying an original vehicle - before I made a mess that is - but Andy Edgson offered off his own bat to print the modified version for me. So yes, really delighted, may take a while for him to do the CAD, but I suspect it will then be added to his catalogue.

 

You could always do another in carmine and cream!!

 

John.

[John Tomlinson]

36 minutes ago, iak said:

 

CLC articulated stock...

Well that has made me sit up in a hurry. My stash of auld Kirk suburbans suddenly have a genuine use apart frae butchery into oddities...

There are some nice beasties on this thread mind.

Thanks for the post.

 

If you have a really, really large stash you mind find that putting the odd one on ebay makes a major change to your wealth, judging from the daft prices they seem to be going for these days!

 

The CLC is a very fascinating thing indeed. I've always thought that the Chester area would make a good basis for a model, with locos from everywhere other than the Southern and the Scottish highlands.

 

John.

[Headstock]

5 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

It is indeed Andy, and it was your model on "Coulsdon Works" that made it register when I was looking through the Isinglass catalogue! The six axle bogies give them a lot of character I think.

 

As I said, I thought it would be interesting to see how far I could get modifying an original vehicle - before I made a mess that is - but Andy Edgson offered off his own bat to print the modified version for me. So yes, really delighted, may take a while for him to do the CAD, but I suspect it will then be added to his catalogue.

 

You could always do another in carmine and cream!!

 

John.

 

John,

 

it would be worth reminding Andy Edgson of the inverted angle iron on these carriages, as captured by Greenie Andy in his model.