Wright writes.....

[Ian Kirk]

Hi,

 

I have only just seen this.  Nice work on the Mailcoach kits, better than they deserve really.  I am not going to make a case for them or any of my other 4mm kits for that matter other than to say they were of their time and the RTR of that period does not stand up to comparison with current efforts either.  The Mailcoach stuff was not my favourite. It was originally intended as a commission (not from Mailcoach we created that later) and the customer was into tampo printing etc so the idea was to have pre coloured sides. Much of the tooling work was done and the commitment to clear sides was made before the original customer went bust leaving me with 6 months unpaid work. We formed Mailcoach to market these ourselves but could not get a reasonable quote to print the sides. The rest as they say is history.....  In my day we scrapped at least 75% of the mouldings to try to get rid of those with marked windows. I hated moulding clear styrene! Not sure what has happened since.

I agree with the "running coaches" idea. In all of my own modelling I have always applied the 2 foot rule (now probably the 3 foot rule as my eyes get older) and if it looks OK running by and conveys the impression of the real thing it is fine by me.

 

best wishes,

 

Ian

[Ian Smeeton]

Surely, as the eyes get older it is the 'One Foot Rule'.

 

You can get that much closer and still not see the discrepancies?

 

Regards

 

Ian

[Tony Wright]

Hi,

 

I have only just seen this.  Nice work on the Mailcoach kits, better than they deserve really.  I am not going to make a case for them or any of my other 4mm kits for that matter other than to say they were of their time and the RTR of that period does not stand up to comparison with current efforts either.  The Mailcoach stuff was not my favourite. It was originally intended as a commission (not from Mailcoach we created that later) and the customer was into tampo printing etc so the idea was to have pre coloured sides. Much of the tooling work was done and the commitment to clear sides was made before the original customer went bust leaving me with 6 months unpaid work. We formed Mailcoach to market these ourselves but could not get a reasonable quote to print the sides. The rest as they say is history.....  In my day we scrapped at least 75% of the mouldings to try to get rid of those with marked windows. I hated moulding clear styrene! Not sure what has happened since.

I agree with the "running coaches" idea. In all of my own modelling I have always applied the 2 foot rule (now probably the 3 foot rule as my eyes get older) and if it looks OK running by and conveys the impression of the real thing it is fine by me.

 

best wishes,

 

Ian

Ian,

 

How nice to hear from you. I hope you're keeping well.

 

Thanks for your comments. 

 

Despite my 'misgivings' about the Mailcoach clear plastic sides, when a mate was round yesterday and saw them racing by he thought they looked really good. I'm happy with them (though not at too close quarters, as mentioned) and if you're prepared to put the work in they are very good value for money. They are, as you say, products of their time, but in the case of these their time is now.

 

You mention scrapping 75% of the clear plastic sides. When I built the first Mailcoach carriages in the last century, Tony Brown had to send me one or two replacement sides. One shattered as I tried to (slightly) straighten it (immediately replaced) and I cocked one side up by being ham-fisted with the solvent (again, immediately replaced - what service). Another side was also replaced because it had clouded windows.

 

What should not be forgotten is how much the LNER/ER/ScR/NER 4mm modellers owe to you for your kits. Yes, more modern alternatives have appeared (but don't assume all etched-brass Gresleys are perfect), and for years layouts I was involved with had dozens of your kits running on them (mine still has about six or seven). At a time when the only alternatives were BSL (all that beading to add!), MTK (!!!!) or the original shorty Hornby Gresleys (the first ones not even on Gresley bogies), your kits were a Godsend.

 

So, my personal thanks.

 

Tony.

[HerbertHopkins]

In between finishing off the carriages in my last post, I've amused myself by.....................Helping a mate build the frames for his first loco kit - a SE Finecast N5. His holiday work is to paint the chassis and install the wheels. After that, it'll be a few more sessions of help, but it's important he'll do most of it himself.

 

 

 

 

 

Looking good Tony, I quite fancy an N5 myself, maybe in the new year I'll have a word with Mr Ellis.

 

Incidentally, said mate is now the custodian of a train set we have, reluctantly, had to part company with due to space restrictions, At least it's gone to a good home.

 

Ian Kirk's comments are interesting. If those dratted Mailcoach coaches had had the pre-printed sides as planned it would have saved a hell of a lot of faffing about!

[coachmann]

Talking of Gresley coaches, I have been buying the latest concession coaches and they have planted little teak worms in my head about removing sides and fitting etched brass ones - again! I thought this was all behind me but it seems not! But I don't really want to narrow the underframes this time. I believe you and Gilbert just changed the sides so it would be of interest to me to see a photo of a conversion.

Edited December 3, 2014 by coachmann

[Nelson Jackson]

What a lovely set of carriages Tony, they look excellent

[micklner]

Talking of Gresley coaches, I have been buying the latest concession coaches and they have planted little teak worms in my head about removing sides and fitting etched brass ones - again! I thought this was all behind me but it seems not! But I don't really want to narrow the underframes this time. I believe you and Gilbert just changed the sides so it would be of interest to me to see a photo of a conversion.

It maybe covered in the latest BRM annual . If you could find any to browse or buy   I haven found one yet in any Smiffs.

 

As to the Gresleys I followed your lead on narrowing etc , the difference to my eyes at normal viewing distance is minimal . 

[jwealleans]

It is covered in the latest BRM Annual, which I found in WH Smith, Epsom, last week and read on the train on the way back home. So far it's the only article I've read through and a very welcome return by Mr Wright it is.

[Taz]

Tony also covered them in the Right Track 4 DVD which is still available from Activity Media.

 

Clip on youtube here:

 

http://youtu.be/5ECUZz9hnwc

[Mallard60022]

 

best wishes,

 

Ian

Jump on the wagon I will.....also SR modellers should also be grateful for Maunsell catering carriages..........thanks Ian. Hornby.....are you reading this please?

Phil

[Tony Wright]

Talking of Gresley coaches, I have been buying the latest concession coaches and they have planted little teak worms in my head about removing sides and fitting etched brass ones - again! I thought this was all behind me but it seems not! But I don't really want to narrow the underframes this time. I believe you and Gilbert just changed the sides so it would be of interest to me to see a photo of a conversion.

Larry,

 

I don't think it's really worth narrowing the underframes - not if you're contemplating building rakes of these conversions.

 

 

 

I think these two shots provide an interesting comparison. The top one was not used in my article in the current BRM Annual. It shows a modified Hornby carriage on the left and the one on the right is as-supplied (with just some little additions). I don't think the too-wide headstock is over-obtrusive, especially with the carriage in a rake and swishing by. 

 

The lower picture was used in the article, showing one of your conversions for Gilbert Barnatt on the left. The one on the right is the same as in the top one. Yes, the narrowed underfame is apparent, but only just so in my opinion.

 

 

This picture was used, showing your conversion for Gilbert complete. 

 

I think the main improvement in these conversions is the forming of the correct tumbleholme, the thinning of the lower ends (even though some of the end beading is lost) and the correct position of the lower, horizontal side beading. Those, and the application of a proper paint job in your case, of course. 

 

I believe Tim Easter is to complete the remaining coaches for Gilbert. I'll be most interested to see how he gets on, because, apart from the ones I've done, the ones you've done, one done by Dart castings for display and one done by Rupert Brown, I've not seen any others. 

 

To comment on some other posts, I have covered similar conversions to those in the Annual already in BRM itself and on a DVD, but these only concerned (if my memory serves) the sides made by MJT. It was thought worthy of further expansion by including sides from the likes of Comet, Bill Bedford and Kemilway. I hope readers have found it of value. I'd like constructive, critical feedback if possible.

 

 

Finally, Paul Bason and Geoff Haynes popped over yesterday for a day's running on LB. In over three hours intensive operation, apart from the occasional piece of dud operation (yours truly!), there was not a single layout/stock malfunction. I couldn't enjoy my railway by any means if it didn't run. Geoff brought along this Marcs Models Silver Jubilee catering triplet he'd made. It was most impressive work, and superior in just about every way to my Mailcoach triplet.

 

Edited because the damn' computer has put in one picture twice and the one it should have put in place is now at the bottom. I hope viewers can tell which is which. My apologies indeed!

Edited December 5, 2014 by Tony Wright

[coachmann]

Thanks for your reply Tony. Another side-issue of narrowing the chassis is the necessity to make and fit new wider footboards, which all adds to the time. As you say, it isn't really worth the effort at the end of the day. When Gilbert said he had not bothered narrowing the chassis, I assumed he had simply fitted etched brass coach sides without forming a better tumblehome than Hornby's.......silly me!

Edited December 5, 2014 by coachmann

[micklner]

Tony

       Pictures of my conversions in decent livery !!  are here at the bottom of the page 

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/943-lner-models-in-4mm/page-10

 

   I doubt too , if I would do more a lot a faffing about and probably no quicker than building a whole kit version.  Just made start on some Southern Pride LNER Thompson conversions which should be a lot simpler to do.

[Tony Wright]

Tony

       Pictures of my conversions in decent livery !!  are here at the bottom of the page 

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/943-lner-models-in-4mm/page-10

 

   I doubt too , if I would do more a lot a faffing about and probably no quicker than building a whole kit version.  Just made start on some Southern Pride LNER Thompson conversions which should be a lot simpler to do.

Thanks,

 

What splendid work................

[gr.king]

Regarding the end-view comparisons, I notice that the example showing the narrowed underframe also has narrowed bodywork at that end by virtue of the fact that it is the brake end of a coach. Would the reduced headstock width be shown in a fairer comparison were we looking at a normal full width coach body end in both cases?

[coachmann]

Regarding the end-view comparisons, I notice that the example showing the narrowed underframe also has narrowed bodywork at that end by virtue of the fact that it is the brake end of a coach. Would the reduced headstock width be shown in a fairer comparison were we looking at a normal full width coach body end in both cases?

To be honest I am not sure. Tony is the LNER-man. I admit to not taking a lot of care when literally slapping etched sides on Hornby roofs and underframes some years back. It shows even more since the sides were later removed for stripping-off the teak finish and spraying them in BR blood & custard or Maroon. The plastic roof and ends suffered in the gluing back process.

[Tony Wright]

Regarding the end-view comparisons, I notice that the example showing the narrowed underframe also has narrowed bodywork at that end by virtue of the fact that it is the brake end of a coach. Would the reduced headstock width be shown in a fairer comparison were we looking at a normal full width coach body end in both cases?

Good point - I didn't consider that.

 

To be honest Graeme, at this point what I've done 'works' as far as I'm concerned because these conversions are no more than a part of complete (long) trains. Compared with the work of Willetts, Goddard, Banks and, particularly, the Coopers (plus other well-known coach builders), they're not even in the second-hand Sherpa Van Trophy compared with the World Cup - they're layout coaches and should be judged as that.

 

 

 

This image appeared in the BRM Annual, and shows the Kemilway-sided 'Super-Third'.

 

 

This image also appeared in the Annual and shows your Bachmann A2-A2/3 conversion, with the leading carriage behind the tender being the MJT-sided Third Open. The following Comet Brake Third is definitely narrower at its brake end so the visual effect is 'convincing' I think. So, here we have a 'layout' loco hauling a 'layout' train. Good enough I hope?

 

Gilbert Barnatt seems happy with the conversions he has, and I'm sure Tim Easter will do a very good job for him in completing what he wants.   

Edited December 5, 2014 by Tony Wright

[gr.king]

Those coaches are all definitely "good enough", and far more. I stand in a glass house if I throw any stones at coach models, the majority of my teak coaches being rebuilds of Margate offerings. Lengths and underframes may be corrected, interiors altered to match and painted suitable colours, along with a number of other improvements especially to roof/end detail, but they all retain under-size windows far too deeply recessed into the sides, moulded handles/grab rails, plus the original bogies.

Were time and cost no object then a whole now fleet of the likes of MJT, RDEB and D&S examples would be wonderful, probably with some custom etches thrown in too, but like most others on here I live in the real world, for some of the time at any rate.

[Tony Wright]

In between building locos and carriages, I've been detailing/renumbering/weathering one or two RTR locos as part of my on-going horse-trading arrangements. 

 

 

First was a Hornby L1 for Ian Wilson. This is a splendid model at source, and has just had a few wiggly pipes added and been renumbered to a Grantham-based one for 1958.

 

The approaching A4 is also a detailed/renumbered/slightly weathered Hornby A4, and the disappearing Down express has a Hornby Mk.1 as its last vehicle, also slightly altered. All the wagons in the L1's pick-up freight are weathered RTR examples. The only kit-built wagon is in the lay-bye.

 

Which brings me back to my recurring theme - there is no need to kit-build stuff for the likes of this any more, not with such a high standard available RTR. Still, apart from the wagons, all the alterations are my work, which is still very important to me.

 

On another thread there are comments on the over-size of loco/stock lamps. Those in this view are all Springside LNER ones. Their BR ones are hugely over-sized, and any I still have are being replaced. I did toy with the idea of using 2mm or 3mm lamps, but, naturally, they're far more difficult to drill out. I think the 'layout' answer is a dab of weathering (dirty thinners), as has been applied to the L1's lamp. What do others think, please? 

 

 

The L1 now prepares to shunt its wagons; would an ex-GWR motor van ever be in an ECML pick-up freight? Unlikely, but it's one of Dave Shakespeare's, so just as unlikely on Tetleys Mills? Ian Wilson's little hut's door still needs a doorknob and some weathering.

 

 

Two of Grantham's 1958-allocated L1s run side-by-side on respective Down trains on Little Bytham. Anecdotal and empirical evidence suggests that any of Grantham's tanks of the period would have been used principally between Grantham and Nottingham, with an occasional run to High Dyke. There is an earlier shot of an A5 heading a Grantham-Peterborough local, but none of any L1s. However, Ian Wilson reports 'copping' 67800 at Peterborough North in 1958; so how did it get there? Both L1s have Ian Wilson's front numberplates.

 

Official documentation also suggests that any such stoppers should be gangway stock, but photographic evidence says this was not always the case.

 

 

A case might be made for L1s running through LB, but not this. It's a Bachmann English Director which I've detailed/renumbered/renamed and weathered. Extra detailing included the wiggly lubricator pipes down both sides of the boiler (5Amp fusewire). Renumbering/renaming was achieved using 247 Developments' plates and HMRS transfers, and the weathering my standard practice of various matt brown/grey/black Humbrol enamels, 'dry-brush'-applied with a sable. Yes, I know Tom Foster has done weathering for me (as has John Houlden) but I still like to do much of it myself. One 'major' alteration was the removal of the horridly-obese coupling pocket on the front of the bogie. Removal? I just turned the bogie round! This 'nasty' feature is all too evident on most RTR locos. I usually just cut it off, right back to the stretcher. One invisible (in this view) alteration is the removal of the unnecessary tender pick-ups (all live-frog points) and the attendant worm's nest of wires between the loco and tender because of DCC. Since I don't tolerate DCC, off it all came and the motor just hot-wired to the chassis pick-ups. A new loco/tender drawbar was also made, meaning the two are entirely independent. Much easier, and much better in my opinion. 

 

I'm not sure what to do with this loco because it has sentimental value. Not the model but the prototype. One day in 1955/'56, I was standing idly on Manning's Lane railway bridge in Hoole, a suburb of Chester, with a jar of tiddlers fished from Kennedy's pond - a sort of swamp in the adjacent fields - when 62661 ran beneath on its way to Chester Northgate. Moments later PRINCE OF WALES of the same class headed the other way towards Mickle Trafford. All the Northwich/Trafford Park Directors were duly noted on the CLC. Fly-forward a year or two and I was standing, equally idly, on Kiveton Park Station, between Sheffield and Worksop, when in wheezed GERARD himself on a train for Lincoln - far now from the CLC. Moments later, YPRES came past heading for Sheffield. Both were trying to appear the dirtier. A year later, I actually travelled behind a D11 between Kiveton and Retford, but I can't remember which one now. It might have been 62661, but our notebooks were after much more exciting fayre. 

 

So, what to do with it? I can't imagine a D11 ever getting further south than Grantham (from Lincoln, on the now-closed line?) and certainly not running through Little Bytham. 

Edited December 6, 2014 by Tony Wright

[coronach]

In between building locos and carriages, I've been detailing/renumbering/weathering one or two RTR locos as part of my on-going horse-trading arrangements. 

 

L1 01.jpg

 

First was a Hornby L1 for Ian Wilson. This is a splendid model at source, and has just had a few wiggly pipes added and been renumbered to a Grantham-based one for 1958.

 

The approaching A4 is also a detailed/renumbered/slightly weathered Hornby A4, and the disappearing Down express has a Hornby Mk.1 as its last vehicle, also slightly altered. All the wagons in the L1's pick-up freight are weathered RTR examples. The only kit-built wagon is in the lay-bye.

 

Which brings me back to my recurring theme - there is no need to kit-build stuff for the likes of this any more, not with such a high standard available RTR. Still, apart from the wagons, all the alterations are my work, which is still very important to me.

 

On another thread there are comments on the over-size of loco/stock lamps. Those in this view are all Springside LNER ones. Their BR ones are hugely over-sized, and any I still have are being replaced. I did toy with the idea of using 2mm or 3mm lamps, but, naturally, they're far more difficult to drill out. I think the 'layout' answer is a dab of weathering (dirty thinners), as has been applied to the L1's lamp. What do others think, please? 

 

L1 02.jpg

 

The L1 now prepares to shunt its wagons; would an ex-GWR motor van ever be in an ECML pick-up freight? Unlikely, but it's one of Dave Shakespeare's, so just as unlikely on Tetleys Mills? Ian Wilson's little hut's door still needs a doorknob and some weathering.

 

L1 03.jpg

 

Two of Grantham's 1958-allocated L1s run side-by-side on respective Down trains on Little Bytham. Anecdotal and empirical evidence suggests that any of Grantham's tanks of the period would have been used principally between Grantham and Nottingham, with an occasional run to High Dyke. There is an earlier shot of an A5 heading a Grantham-Peterborough local, but none of any L1s. However, Ian Wilson reports 'copping' 67800 at Peterborough North in 1958; so how did it get there? Both L1s have Ian Wilson's front numberplates.

 

Official documentation also suggests that any such stoppers should be gangway stock, but photographic evidence says this was not always the case.

 

D11.jpg

 

A case might be made for L1s running through LB, but not this. It's a Bachmann English Director which I've detailed/renumbered/renamed and weathered. Extra detailing included the wiggly lubricator pipes down both sides of the boiler (5Amp fusewire). Renumbering/renaming was achieved using 247 Developments' plates and HMRS transfers, and the weathering my standard practice of various matt brown/grey/black Humbrol enamels, 'dry-brush'-applied with a sable. Yes, I know Tom Foster has done weathering for me (as has John Houlden) but I still like to do much of it myself. One 'major' alteration was the removal of the horridly-obese coupling pocket on the front of the bogie. Removal? I just turned the bogie round! This 'nasty' feature is all too evident on most RTR locos. I usually just cut it off, right back to the stretcher. One invisible (in this view) alteration is the removal of the unnecessary tender pick-ups (all live-frog points) and the attendant worm's nest of wires between the loco and tender because of DCC. Since I don't tolerate DCC, off it all came and the motor just hot-wired to the chassis pick-ups. A new loco/tender drawbar was also made, meaning the two are entirely independent. Much easier, and much better in my opinion. 

 

I'm not sure what to do with this loco because it has sentimental value. Not the model but the prototype. One day in 1955/'56, I was standing idly on Manning's Lane railway bridge in Hoole, a suburb of Chester, with a jar of tiddlers fished from Kennedy's pond - a sort of swamp in the adjacent fields - when 62661 ran beneath on its way to Chester Northgate. Moments later PRINCE OF WALES of the same class headed the other way towards Mickle Trafford. All the Northwich/Trafford Park Directors were duly noted on the CLC. Fly-forward a year or two and I was standing, equally idly, on Kiveton Park Station, between Sheffield and Worksop, when in wheezed GERARD himself on a train for Lincoln - far now from the CLC. Moments later, YPRES came past heading for Sheffield. Both were trying to appear the dirtier. A year later, I actually travelled behind a D11 between Kiveton and Retford, but I can't remember which one now. It might have been 62661, but our notebooks were after much more exciting fayre. 

 

So, what to do with it? I can't imagine a D11 ever getting further south than Grantham (from Lincoln, on the now-closed line?) and certainly not running through Little Bytham. 

Although it might be very unlikely that a D11 ever ran through Little Bytham, there is no reason why one couldn't have.  A combination of a loco failure and the demands of finding suitable locos at Grantham for extra trains on a summer Saturday meant that locos could end up in the most unusual locations.   Presumably it would be taken off at Peterborough and be worked back to Nottingham or Leicester on Sunday. 

[jwealleans]

 

what to do with it?

Keep it and run it.  It's your railway.  When did the Directors start to be used on RCTS railtours?  ISTR many of them were double headed as well.

 

I had resisted a Director until recently but now I'm waiting for Marne to arrive.  My great grandfather fought there.  I don't need any better reason than that.

[teaky]

Lamps - I agree Tony: many lamps do look oversize.  The Springside ones always look the best out of the readily available lamps.  Your weathering helps provide some definition of the moulded shape and, perhaps, slims them down a little too.  I have not seen any pictures of 3mm LNER lamps.  It would certainly be interesting to see what they look like on a 4mm loco.  I always feel that it is the over thick handles that let lamps down.  Though the idea of removing them, drilling out and replacing with fine wire seems over the top.  I have seen some from RT Models that look quite effective once fettled.  They don't come with handles at all.

 

Mannings Lane bridge - Is that the one over the now disused line which has been turned into part of the national cycle routes?  Only a few weeks ago, I walked over the next bridge along in the Chester direction (Fairfield Road).  At least the line is still finding some use.

[coachmann]

Keep it and run it.  It's your railway.  When did the Directors start to be used on RCTS railtours?  ISTR many of them were double headed as well.

 

I had resisted a Director until recently but now I'm waiting for Marne to arrive.  My great grandfather fought there.  I don't need any better reason than that.

Some modellers would feel awkward about running models that are out of period or are plain unlikely to have run on the stretch of line they have modelled. I know I would, so that is where 'reasonable justification' enters the arena. It doesn't necessarily bar me from buying a UP 'Big Boy', but I sure wouldn't post pictures of it entering Delph! 

Edited December 6, 2014 by coachmann

[jwealleans]

Fair point, Larry and I wouldn't expect my pre-1928 liveried Marne to run on Grantham, for example.  Not at an exhibition anyway.  My point was that the railway is there to be enjoyed and if a D11 is part of that then so much the better.  If it feels awkward or out of place such that it affects the enjoyment then it ought to go.  I wouldn't criticise anyone for striving for authenticity until it started to stop the whole thing being fun.

[Mallard60022]

'Unusual' loco's for a location......

Here's one!

ES at Seaton Junction Sep. '64.

OK so it is a special....but.........

Phil

Edited December 6, 2014 by Mallard60022