Peterborough North

[stewartingram]

I don't think our photographer climbed up anything. He went into Woolies and bought (for a tanner?) what we would nowadays call a drone, except that it was clockwork. I just wish they hadn't gone bust, as judging by the results he got, I want one......

 

Stewart

Edited May 13, 2016 by stewartingram

[Mallard60022]

The mention of drone reminds me that SWMBO says that the film Eye in the Sky is a good un. Apologies for OT.

I like the colours in the last series of shots G.

I do hope you enjoyed your time with the Wolves? late evening curry though......could be dangerous?

Philth.

[great northern]

The mention of drone reminds me that SWMBO says that the film Eye in the Sky is a good un. Apologies for OT.

I like the colours in the last series of shots G.

I do hope you enjoyed your time with the Wolves? late evening curry though......could be dangerous?

Philth.

The colours? I had to fiddle with them a bit, as for some reason they came out darker than they looked on the view screen. As to curry, I don't eat dangerous ones these days, Malayan mine was. Those West Midlands lads are made of sterner stuff though. A good day is guaranteed when Rob and Mick are around.

[great northern]

I'm still not sure how our photogapher got to his higher vantage point, but I think there must be a convenient pole, or even a signal, out on the Midland lines. I have worked out though, I think, that he is perched some 16ft off the ground. Whatever, he appears to be fairly secure, as he was able to swing round smartly when he heard a train approaching from the North.

The New Clee fish vans, behind an Immingham B1.

Indeed he is perched so securely that he can immediately swing round again to follow it as it enters the station. This is probably about as crowded as things can get at this end.

 

Later, I shall start a discussion about millimetres.

[great northern]

OK, millimetres, well to be precise just one of them actually. I really would like to get views on a particular subject, involving one of the pesky little things. I had a Gresley RC which was nearly complete, and our ever generous duck offered to complete it for me. Indeed, he posted a photo on here a few pages back, and it looks lovely. Then though he raised a couple of questions, the most important being as to which Diagram the coach belongs. There were many LNER RC diagrams, stretching from 1923-39. I wanted this one to be to Dia 144, but the sides which I had obtained were to Dia 10c. Phil pointed out that this coach as supplied to him had angle iron trussing, which could not be correct for that diagram, as it was built before that came in. Thus it should have turnbuckle trusssing. So far, simples. Next Phil also pointed out that Dia 10c should be to 9ft extreme width, whereas dia 144 was to 9ft 3.

 

Why should this matter? Well, to keep within the loading gauge, 9ft 3 coaches had to have recessed doors. Do my sides have those? No, they do not. I then looked up Dia 10c in the books by Michael Harris, who is generally acknowledged to be the expert on LNER coaches. He says, several times, that Dia 10c was built to 9ft3 extreme width. I pointed this out to Phil, who told me that he has the Isinglass drawing, also acknowledged to be very good, and that shows them at 9ft width. We then involved our Jwealleans, who has built more of them than you can shake a stick at, and his drawing shows 9ft 3 too. Someone ain't got it right.

 

However, what are we really talking about? One millimetre is what, as that would be the amount my coach doors would need to be inset to be correct for Dia 144. Can I legitimately ignore this inconvenient millimetre, and number my coach as Dia 144? Yes, I know it is my train set, and I can do as I please, and I'm really not too bothered if a member of the modelling Taliban gleefully tells me it is wrong, but it seems to me to raise a point of general importance. How far should we go in the search for accuracy? At each end of the spectrum there will be extreme views, from " no compromise, not ever, never, under no circumstances" to " I run what I like, and ****** the purists". I've always been really pleased though that visitors to this thread are sensible and reasonable people, not extremists. So I guess really I'm inviting philosophical discussion. Are we in danger of taking the search for accuracy and authenticity a bit too far? I've spent quite a bit of time on this, partly because as an ex lawyer I want to know who is right. My choice, I know, but is this taking things too far. One final point. I'm inclined to make sure the trussing is correct, as that is very noticeable indeed, but ignore the 1mm. That seems to me to be reasonable, but what about the principle of the thing?

 

Now I'm off to play the first of four consecutive days of golf. I don't need telling that is excessive, but it has to be done.

[bigwordsmith]

Gilbert at times like this I'm drawn to Han Solo's mantra - don't sweat the small stuff!

[stewartingram]

OK some might think this is OT, but, in the interests of accuracy.......?

 

A brake coach is formed of compartments at one end and guards section the other. Now on your layout, does the guards compartment sit at the LH or RH end? After all, the prototype went north fom KGX, the the loco was put on t'other end to come back.....

 

If you feel like modelling the coach your way, do it.

 

 

Stewart

[Mallard60022]

The coach is having a laugh as it sits in its box in the workshop Conservatory.

I think it will end up being a D144, however I have the kit to modify the UF to Turnbuckle so it may end up as a D10c. Gilbert's choice absolutely and if anyone can spot the door situation, when it eventually enters service, well they need help, especially as they may well have wiggly water pipes and missing lamp irons to discuss .  

However, I too want to know what is correct as regards the design detail of these coaches as the info that the Three Mustgetclears (G, J and P) have is deffo not at all clear and doubt has crept in. Other than that, as the millimetre being discussed is such a minor detail, I don't really care. Fun though isn't it?

I shall have some lunch, have yet another look at my Harris and Gilbert's Isinglass drawings, probably still not get the answer and then go for a Gym and Rehab Swim session later in the afternoon. (I don't do Golf, especially 4 days on the trot; Gilbert must be Faldo fit, or maybe a cunningly constructed Sporting Android sent to entertain us and we didn't realise?)

So, if anyone that knows the truth (that is out there as we all know) about what lays behind the Green Gresley Door, do tell as we will all then sleep more soundly.......maybe.

Have a good weekend all. 

Don Caster.

[jon_1066]

An interesting question!  Personally I wouldn't know a 10c from a 144 at full size let alone a model - I struggle to remember what all the codes mean for the coach types. I thought this was an expletive laden tirade at first:

 

 

BSO* CK* FK* TRIPLET RC BSK* BSO* SK*CK* BSO*

 

 

 

A difference of 1 mm doesn't sound like much but that really depends upon where the 1 mm is.

 

If it is in the length of the coach or even the width it would be difficult to tell apart.

 

On a flat surface a 1 mm indent is obviously going to be visible.

 

If you don't know for sure what these coaches were built like then striving for total accuracy is pointless anyway as there is some doubt about it.  

Edited May 13, 2016 by jon_1066

[Mallard60022]

OK I am going to extend my neck!

I believe the info in the Harris book is a little confused. Excellent, but confused. There I have said it!

Isinglass notes some 'differences' between D10c and the D144.

The pertinent info from isinglass is thus:

Widths.

(over) Panels

D144 9' 2 1/4"  (almost 9' 3" but not including handles)

D10c 8' 111/4" (almost 9' but not including handles)

Extreme (over handles?) 9' 3" (this is the width of both coaches over the handles presumably).

Thus the D10c over handles is almost 9' 3" (8' 11 1/4" + handles) and the D144 is almost 9' 3" (with recessed doors to 8' 11 1/4") + handles. The handles must be  approx 1 1/2" 'deep' if my maths is correct. e.g. D10c is flat sided and 8' 11 1/4"  wide plus handles sticking out  2 X  approx 1 1/2" = almost 9' 3" maximum width.)

 

Notes 

6. (part) Diag 10c, being narrower (9'?), Isle width is reduced to 2' 1" (D144 is 2' 2 1/2") and double seat is 4' 1" wide (D144 4' 2 1/2")

7. As Diag 10c is standard width stock, the doors are not recessed as on Diag 144 stock.

 

Harris states somewhere in my book that Standard Width is almost 9' overall and then after 1928 I think it was, the width was allowed to increase.

 

There you go me lud. I give you Harris, banged to rights and the honourable Isinglass is therefore not guilty.

Now to the Rehab swim.

Ar$e. 

Edited May 13, 2016 by Mallard60022

[jwealleans]

Nothing is free from error but the drawings used in Harris' Standard Gresley Coaches show the D10C as 9'3" extreme width and the D144 as 9'4".

 

The doors are distinctly recessed on the D144 drawing.

 

If you were going to find an error anywhere I'd look to Harris first but John Edgson was not completely infallible.

 

When did they stop building versions of D10 and move to a different diagram? Was D144 issued because of the move to 9'3" width (almost all carriages to the new width were to new diagrams)?

 

Have you asked the question on the LNER forum, Phil?

[chaz]

OK, millimetres, well to be precise just one of them actually. I really would like to get views on a particular subject, involving one of the pesky little things. I had a Gresley RC which was nearly complete, and our ever generous duck offered to complete it for me. Indeed, he posted a photo on here a few pages back, and it looks lovely. Then though he raised a couple of questions, the most important being as to which Diagram the coach belongs. There were many LNER RC diagrams, stretching from 1923-39. I wanted this one to be to Dia 144, but the sides which I had obtained were to Dia 10c. Phil pointed out that this coach as supplied to him had angle iron trussing, which could not be correct for that diagram, as it was built before that came in. Thus it should have turnbuckle trusssing. So far, simples. Next Phil also pointed out that Dia 10c should be to 9ft extreme width, whereas dia 144 was to 9ft 3.

 

Why should this matter? Well, to keep within the loading gauge, 9ft 3 coaches had to have recessed doors. Do my sides have those? No, they do not. I then looked up Dia 10c in the books by Michael Harris, who is generally acknowledged to be the expert on LNER coaches. He says, several times, that Dia 10c was built to 9ft3 extreme width. I pointed this out to Phil, who told me that he has the Isinglass drawing, also acknowledged to be very good, and that shows them at 9ft width. We then involved our Jwealleans, who has built more of them than you can shake a stick at, and his drawing shows 9ft 3 too. Someone ain't got it right.

 

However, what are we really talking about? One millimetre is what, as that would be the amount my coach doors would need to be inset to be correct for Dia 144. Can I legitimately ignore this inconvenient millimetre, and number my coach as Dia 144? Yes, I know it is my train set, and I can do as I please, and I'm really not too bothered if a member of the modelling Taliban gleefully tells me it is wrong, but it seems to me to raise a point of general importance. How far should we go in the search for accuracy? At each end of the spectrum there will be extreme views, from " no compromise, not ever, never, under no circumstances" to " I run what I like, and ****** the purists". I've always been really pleased though that visitors to this thread are sensible and reasonable people, not extremists. So I guess really I'm inviting philosophical discussion. Are we in danger of taking the search for accuracy and authenticity a bit too far? I've spent quite a bit of time on this, partly because as an ex lawyer I want to know who is right. My choice, I know, but is this taking things too far. One final point. I'm inclined to make sure the trussing is correct, as that is very noticeable indeed, but ignore the 1mm. That seems to me to be reasonable, but what about the principle of the thing?

 

Now I'm off to play the first of four consecutive days of golf. I don't need telling that is excessive, but it has to be done.

 

My mantra...

 

If it's as easy to get it right as it is wrong then get it right.

 

If you don't know then get it as right as you can.

 

If getting it right involves too much money/time/swearing and a compromise is virtually indetectable then compromise.

 

If you have made a mistake and you are the only one who has spotted it then only change it if you need to - to satisfy yourself.

 

One millimetre is relative - as has already been said its effect will vary, depending on how large a percentage it is of the whole dimension.

 

Hope that helps - maybe I could just point out that your track gauge is more than a millimetre out....

 

Chaz

[Taz]

I'm not familiar with these coaches but I would have thought ressessed vs flush doors would be quite obvious. If it was just the overall width of the coaches I don't think anyone would notice.

I generally try and build things as correct as possible. If I know something is wrong but still go ahead and build it that way it tends to nag at me. If an error is pointed out after building I tend not to get so worked up as I know I built it to the best of my knowledge and ability at the time.

[Mallard60022]

Nothing is free from error but the drawings used in Harris' Standard Gresley Coaches show the D10C as 9'3" extreme width and the D144 as 9'4".

 

The doors are distinctly recessed on the D144 drawing.

 

If you were going to find an error anywhere I'd look to Harris first but John Edgson was not completely infallible.

 

When did they stop building versions of D10 and move to a different diagram? Was D144 issued because of the move to 9'3" width (almost all carriages to the new width were to new diagrams)?

 

Have you asked the question on the LNER forum, Phil? 

Harris says the change allowing greater width was end of 1929? Then we have the 4 D144s built in 1931 and two more in 1933; did they have Turnbuckle Trusses (9068 - 9071 '31 and 9079 and 9082 '33)?

Last 10cs  were built in 1929

I've lost my log in for the LNER Forum....doh, so no I haven't.

I've only got LNER Carriages (Harris) and I'm going on pages 83 to 85 info + some stuff seen elsewhere, however I wish I hadn't started looking and was just going by the Isinglass drawings but I'm not losing sleep over it. I just get annoyed if I have not tried to do something as correct as I can get it.

Now, did anyone mention window differences? No? What about those large roof vents? No?  (They are similar to the Triplet vents so they will get done). Thank goodness for that. Will my pants catch fire? Who knows? 

Thanks J; I bet it is even more fun trying to sort out the older stock you deal with?

Phil

Edited May 13, 2016 by Mallard60022

[Mallard60022]

Nothing is free from error but the drawings used in Harris' Standard Gresley Coaches show the D10C as 9'3" extreme width and the D144 as 9'4".

 

The doors are distinctly recessed on the D144 drawing.

 

If you were going to find an error anywhere I'd look to Harris first but John Edgson was not completely infallible.

 

When did they stop building versions of D10 and move to a different diagram? Was D144 issued because of the move to 9'3" width (almost all carriages to the new width were to new diagrams)?

 

Have you asked the question on the LNER forum, Phil?

One thing that could help with this situation, as far as the 'look' of the coach is concerned, is to consider the appearance of the Bill Bedford  Gresley sides that have the 'recess door' provided for, in comparison to a flush sided Gresley coach. I have part built one BB with recessed doors (that was not fun I can tell you because I didn't know what I was doing......think Jonno might have told me the method? I think the end result was OK?)  If the coaches are placed next to each other, is the difference in the look of the doors that obvious?  If yes then I think that tells us  we should go for accuracy. If not then woohoo!

Phil

[jwealleans]

I'll see what I can provide in the way of photos....

[Mallard60022]

I'll see what I can provide in the way of photos....

Gilbert could probably take a couple of his coaches and arrange something, however i suspect he is celebrating his winning round/hole in one etc.

Thanks J. If you can that will be good.

Phil 

[jwealleans]

Here you go.  I'm not sure offering pictures as close up as these was a good idea - the roof on the RTP looks very rough and the top of the lower panel of the door on the D10C looks to have popped the solder, but you get the idea.

 

D10C - normal door

 

 

D151 - recessed door

 

Edited July 12, 2018 by jwealleans

[New Haven Neil]

All of which makes me wonder what tolerances the originals were built to.....discuss.

[Mallard60022]

Thanks Jonno. Good of you to spend time doing that. I will reserve judgement as I've said enough. However, your pics remind me that there are step-boards to be sorted and those small rain-strips above the doors.  

Nice paint jobs by the way.

Phil

[Mallard60022]

An interesting question!  Personally I wouldn't know a 10c from a 144 at full size let alone a model - I struggle to remember what all the codes mean for the coach types. I thought this was an expletive laden tirade at first:

 

BSO* CK* FK* TRIPLET RC BSK* BSO* SK*CK* BSO*

 

 

Thats LNER Tourettes that is

Phil

Edited May 13, 2016 by Mallard60022

[jwealleans]

{pedant mode] Actually, in LNER terms, it's BTO*CK*FK*RTS*BTK*TK*CK*BTO.... [/pedant mode}

[Oldddudders]

{pedant mode] Actually, in LNER terms, it's BTO*CK*FK*RTS*BTK*TK*CK*BTO.... [/pedant mode}

 

And BR until 1956?

[mark54]

Looking at the diagram book:

 

D.10C - width over body 9' 0", extreme width 9' 3"

D.144 - width over mouldings 9' 3", extreme width 9' 4"

 

The recessed doors has allowed a greater body width in D.144. Later D.144 (from c1935) besides angle trussing had sliding quarterlights in the saloon (rather than louvred ones).

Edited May 13, 2016 by mark54

[great northern]

  Come in from hitting silly little balls that don't co-operate, in a freezing half gale, and find I have a lot of catching up to do. That I shall do in the morning. For now, as I was comparatively well organised this morning and have a couple more photos in the store, here is what our second photographer saw.

Also available in cropped form.

 

The golf tournament was not fair, as they allowed people who have youth to play.