Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

Speaking about bogies, and with reference to full brakes further up the thread. An extensive trawl through the records at the NRM, would seem to confirm that the 8' single bolster heavy type bogie was selected to replace the fox type on new build full brakes.

post-26757-0-01437400-1462200881_thumb.jpg

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of them were certainly used by the engineers, whether they were painted black or not I'm not so sure. My memory of engineer's stock was that they were not repainted very often, and for old cascaded stock this meant that they were almost never repainted. The last of these coaches were withdrawn around 1950. There are photos of some in service in 1949 when they were over 50 years old. So that most of these coaches were withdrawn by the LNER and would have been given 9xxxxx number and painted oxford blue. Any that were withdrawn by BR were given DE 32xxxx and painted black. These is a problem here, in that I'm not at all sure what colour engineers coaches were painted during the 40s. I would expect that they were painted blue until stocks of paint ran out and then they were probably painted black, or brown, I just can't tell from black and white photos. If anyone has any information on this I would like hear it. 

 

And on a related note, does anyone know how oxford blue weathered?

 

I have some research on this as regards the GC section, I will have to dig it out however. The last GN XB was working as a Gorton works loco stores van (late 40's), attached to a Marylebone and return ordinary passenger train service. I was told that the departmental blue carriages looked a dirty grey by the late 1940's, however many departmental carriages never received the Oxford blue paint. Ex GE, NE and MS&L carriages outlasted their GN counterparts on the GC. The NE XB type still being active in the 1960's (one brown paint, branded milk). The 5.22pm of Leicester always conveyed a stores van on a regular cycle, spotted were ex GE XB probably black with the legend loco stores van and Gorton on the side, EX MS&L passenger brake converted to XB, most likely brown due to the distinctive black ends (unbranded), and an ex NE XB also brown. Leicester shed had a converted ex GE bogie passenger brake branded motive power department, colour may have been brown but difficult to tell. A pile of kits awaits the soldering iron.

Edited by Headstock
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The departmental coaches that lived in the Civil Engineer's yard at Hitchin in the mid-late '50s were black. My grandfather's allotment overlooked the yard and I would go to 'help' him collect vegetables for Sunday lunch, which mainly involved watching the trains go by and the steam cranes in the yard. There was a footpath round the back of the yard and I remember being fascinated by the old panelled coaches but I have no idea what they would have been.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would recommend fitting motor bogies in the rear driving car aswell as it is possible that 1 driving car may struggle to haul or propel the set. There may a lot of modellers on here who get bored with me saying that whenever I read about a project where the finished result is a train of 8, 9, 10 or 11 cars in a unit for example but the reason is that having traction power at both ends helps move the set more effectively than at just 1 end.

I have an 8-car WR Blue Pullman built by Brian Kirby from Tri-ang originals and Southern Pride/Chris Leigh parts.  It still has the original Tri-ang motor bogie (rewheeled and with new side frames) and runs very well. My layout has no gradients and if it did, I think it would need more power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Those coaches look really 'tidy'. Must be a throwback to Kitmaster in that I rather enjoy building kits like this. I'd be tempted to have a go at one but they really are so far away from my particular needs at this time that I can not justify that.

Re. the HD bogies (#9897). This 'bodge bogie job' may be common knowledge but......... I recently have been doing another Hornby/MJT Sides Gresley dining vehicle part conversion. The bogies needed to be HDs. For the first time doing one of these jobs I took off the Hornby bogies side detail with a knife and filed the sides to make them thinner. I then took some MJT Gresley HD Bogie sides (from one of the cast kits they produce) and hacked off the moulding on the rear and then filed the side to about half its original thickness. I then just stuck those sides onto the Hornby bogies and they actually looked OK. Viewed from the side they look fine. Viewed from  the typical 3/4 view of train approaching/retreating the space between the sides and the wheels is not very pleasant to see. However, the coach bogies and the coach, look pretty good using the 3' method of appraisal.  

Do I remember correctly that 247 Developments used to do a good selection of cosmetic bogie sides including Gresleys with footsteps? I'm sure I used some of those on a John Fozzard Thompson NG Kit some years ago. I say used to as I believe those may no longer be available (or am I being dim and can't find them on the website)?   

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the weathering of the Oxford blue, my account comes from an eyewitness familiar with the comings and goings of this stock on Woodford shed. The blue fading to a grey colour. Stock transferred to departmental service after the war seems never to have been repainted into blue, and a lot never received the BR black.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I'm an inobservant oaf regarding the way that model carriages appear to ride. I just use whatever comes in the kit, or whatever is most conveniently to hand if the coach in question is not from a kit. They always appear to me to ride satisfactorily providing that the bogies are mounted properly and blatantly eccentric wheels are avoided.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to imply (you infer) to anyone (uninitiated or not) that's there's anything wrong with any kit by altering it to suit my personal needs. I admit my initial response was a bit 'throw away' and not intended to be definitive. It was careless and ill-considered.  

 

From initial inspection, these kits are superb - definitely superior to a large number (hundreds) of carriage kits I've built. That said, any high-quality kit should be able to be adaptable enough to suit the personal needs of the builder. This does not imply criticism; indeed, quite the opposite. As I've stated in the post above, I prefer white-metal bogies. Why? They always (in my experience) ride better than plastic equivalents. Since 'perfect' running is of paramount importance to me, I go with what I know works the best for me.

 

May I list a few examples where I've altered kits to 'improve' them in my experience, please?

 

Since Comet doesn't make a Gresley heavy-duty bogie, I always use MJT ones underneath the firm's catering cars. I always make them rigid. With Comet's Thompson roofs, I always substitute MJT ones. 

 

I always substitute turned brass buffers for cast-metal/plastic ones on any loco/item of rolling stock I build. This does not imply dissatisfaction with a product, but the brass alternatives are far superior. I've lost count of the times I've picked up broken-off plastic buffer heads off stock after an exhibition.

 

In locomotive construction, I've never been able to make a cast-metal chassis work perfectly. So, I make a brass substitute.

 

I never use the 'American' system of pick-up, even though it's recommended by DJH. Since I've probably built more DJH loco kits than most, how can anyone infer that I'm implying a criticism of DJH because of that?

 

When I built the London Road K2, I altered the method of chassis-making because I couldn't get it to work as designed (I'm not alone). Since I've built over a dozen LRM kits, surely the implication should be that I find them entirely satisfactory and build them as I please.

 

I've lost count of the number of kits of all sorts I've reviewed down the years. In every case, I've altered them to suit my own personal needs. I admit my prejudices and preferences, but I get them all to work; which is the ultimate objective, surely?

 

Finally, on the subject of 'free' kits, perhaps a few pertinent comments might be worth making. In every case, where a kit is provided 'free' for review, the manufacturer always sees a copy of a review before it's published (not to have altered but to be able to make comments about). A full set of pictures is also provided (professionally-taken) free-of-charge for the manufacturer to use as he/she pleases- adverts/publicity/society magazines, etc. In Bill Bedford's case, I've already sent him the picture shown on this thread, for him to use as he wishes. There'll be many more.

 

I'll often build two items at the same time, giving one to the manufacturer to be used (if he/she wishes) as a display model, again free-of-charge. I've made several for DJH in this way, and also written instructions, and provided loads of pictures for the firm's catalogue.

 

Things aren't always as free as some might infer.   

 

I think Tony that this illustrates very clearly a big problem in this whole area.

 

To me (and I suspect to many others, especially perhaps the rather less experienced among us), if an article is explicitly billed and intended as a "Review" then the item should be built substantially "as the manufacturer intended and provided parts and instructions for", with any additions and alterations confined only to parts necessary but not supplied, and/or only such tweaks and fettling necessary to make the thing run or work at all.  If there are then some  "warts" on the resulting outcome they should be outlined and commented upon as part of the judgment the Reviewer makes - along perhaps with brief suggestions as to how they might subsequently modify matters in later builds to suit their own preferences.

 

But if the writer takes the kit and explicitly uses it from the outset as a basis for significant modification to suit their own needs and preferences, doesn't at least broadly follow the recommended sequence, adds or materially changes parts, cuts big lumps off or grafts them in, and generally does not build it using substantially what the manufacturer provided, then - I'm sorry - that isn't actually a "Review" of a kit; it's a "Construction Article" in the genre of "How I would build an "X" using this kit as a starting point".  Which is an entirely valid, and frequently very welcome, thing to see ... but it's not the same thing, and shouldn't be labelled as such!

 

(That said, I have to add that these particular kit does look very interesting and I'm certainly going to check them out!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of them were certainly used by the engineers, whether they were painted black or not I'm not so sure. My memory of engineer's stock was that they were not repainted very often, and for old cascaded stock this meant that they were almost never repainted. The last of these coaches were withdrawn around 1950. There are photos of some in service in 1949 when they were over 50 years old. So that most of these coaches were withdrawn by the LNER and would have been given 9xxxxx number and painted oxford blue. Any that were withdrawn by BR were given DE 32xxxx and painted black. These is a problem here, in that I'm not at all sure what colour engineers coaches were painted during the 40s. I would expect that they were painted blue until stocks of paint ran out and then they were probably painted black, or brown, I just can't tell from black and white photos. If anyone has any information on this I would like hear it. 

 

And on a related note, does anyone know how oxford blue weathered?

Thanks Bill,

 

There is a splendid picture of a J6 on a breakdown train at Wood Green on Page 32 of Eastern Steam in Colour by Hugh Ballantyne, Jane's, 1986. The first vehicle is of great antiquity and painted black. What its origins are, I have no idea but it's so wobbly that to build such a distorted piece of arcane rolling stock from one of your kits would be very difficulty - they're far too straight and correct! The other support coach is in scarlet livery. The date is the 13th of September,1958.In the same book, on Page 13 is a shot of a K2 on Boston shed in front of another breakdown train. The first vehicle in it looks exactly like the Brake Third you sent me. The other vehicles are the crane, a match truck, a six-wheeler and another Fox-bogied GNR carriage.All are painted black, with the exception of the match truck (which is faded red). Interestingly, the duckets on the brake and its roof are painted brown. The lettering on the vehicles is confined to the LH-end, and is white. Does anyone know what it might say? The picture was taken on the 24th of April, 1958.

 

In some ways it's a sin to paint such lovely vehicles faded black, but I'd like to use them on LB, and that's how they must be.

 

I've investigated further how to make them, and my most sincere compliments. I've seen very few kits so well-designed.     

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Tony that this illustrates very clearly a big problem in this whole area.

 

To me (and I suspect to many others, especially perhaps the rather less experienced among us), if an article is explicitly billed and intended as a "Review" then the item should be built substantially "as the manufacturer intended and provided parts and instructions for", with any additions and alterations confined only to parts necessary but not supplied, and/or only such tweaks and fettling necessary to make the thing run or work at all.  If there are then some  "warts" on the resulting outcome they should be outlined and commented upon as part of the judgment the Reviewer makes - along perhaps with brief suggestions as to how they might subsequently modify matters in later builds to suit their own preferences.

 

But if the writer takes the kit and explicitly uses it from the outset as a basis for significant modification to suit their own needs and preferences, doesn't at least broadly follow the recommended sequence, adds or materially changes parts, cuts big lumps off or grafts them in, and generally does not build it using substantially what the manufacturer provided, then - I'm sorry - that isn't actually a "Review" of a kit; it's a "Construction Article" in the genre of "How I would build an "X" using this kit as a starting point".  Which is an entirely valid, and frequently very welcome, thing to see ... but it's not the same thing, and shouldn't be labelled as such!

 

(That said, I have to add that these particular kit does look very interesting and I'm certainly going to check them out!)

Willie,

 

I agree entirely with what you say, and as long as it's made clear which path is being followed then I don't see any problems. 

 

I think I've usually steered a 'middle path' (if that's not too much sitting on the fence). For instance, when I first wrote a review of my building a DJH A1, the kit I used had PLASTIC handrail pillars. Now, I know there'll be somebody out there who will have got on very well with such items, but not me. How does one solder plastic into a white-metal boiler or etched-brass cab? 

 

Kit manufacturers have been entirely happy with my approach down the years, the principal exception being the supplier of a certain infamous V2. I actually bought this because I'd been commissioned to make a model of a V2 for a client, and asked David Brown if he'd be interested in an article. To have built it as supplied would have resulted in an inaccurate, non-working model. No good, then. 

 

Manufacturers try to keep costs down and will thus supply as many parts in their preferred medium as possible - thus cast-metal buffers, vacuum standpipes, etc. I always replace these, as I do white-metal crossheads in the main and CERTAINLY white metal motion parts. 

 

What manufacturers do not want is a review of the reviewer's skills. They want an honest, impartial review. Editors don't want a botched review, either. They want a well-built/finished model (whatever its origins), photographed to a professional standard and an account written in such a way that they have little need to wield the blue pencil. 

Edited by Tony Wright
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Some of them were certainly used by the engineers, whether they were painted black or not I'm not so sure. My memory of engineer's stock was that they were not repainted very often, and for old cascaded stock this meant that they were almost never repainted. The last of these coaches were withdrawn around 1950. There are photos of some in service in 1949 when they were over 50 years old. So that most of these coaches were withdrawn by the LNER and would have been given 9xxxxx number and painted oxford blue. Any that were withdrawn by BR were given DE 32xxxx and painted black. These is a problem here, in that I'm not at all sure what colour engineers coaches were painted during the 40s. I would expect that they were painted blue until stocks of paint ran out and then they were probably painted black, or brown, I just can't tell from black and white photos. If anyone has any information on this I would like hear it. 

 

And on a related note, does anyone know how oxford blue weathered?

Olive drab, perhaps?

Link to post
Share on other sites

....Kit manufacturers have been entirely happy with my approach down the years, the principal exception being a certain infamous V2. I actually bought this because I'd been commissioned to make a model of a V2 for a client, and asked David Brown if he'd be interested in an article. ....

I thought he was called Peter Shepherd. At least, that's what it says on my photocopy of the offending article.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I thought he was called Peter Shepherd. At least, that's what it says on my photocopy of the offending article.

I believe David Brown was the first Editor of BRM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Eccentric wheels were the reason people started to compensate their rolling stock.

Sorry Bill, but as I read that quickly I saw 'Eccentric people was the reason people started to compensate their rolling stock' and it made me laugh. Then I read it correctly and remembered the awful wheels  that were around some years back. 

I'd appreciate any advice re. what the best coach wheels are these days; I have found the EM ones from the EMGS are really good but I need OO at the moment.

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Bill,

 

There is a splendid picture of a J6 on a breakdown train at Wood Green on Page 32 of Eastern Steam in Colour by Hugh Ballantyne, Jane's, 1986. The first vehicle is of great antiquity and painted black. What its origins are, I have no idea but it's so wobbly that to build such a distorted piece of arcane rolling stock from one of your kits would be very difficulty - they're far too straight and correct! The other support coach is in scarlet livery. The date is the 13th of September,1958.In the same book, on Page 13 is a shot of a K2 on Boston shed in front of another breakdown train. The first vehicle in it looks exactly like the Brake Third you sent me. The other vehicles are the crane, a match truck, a six-wheeler and another Fox-bogied GNR carriage.All are painted black, with the exception of the match truck (which is faded red). Interestingly, the duckets on the brake and its roof are painted brown. The lettering on the vehicles is confined to the LH-end, and is white. Does anyone know what it might say? The picture was taken on the 24th of April, 1958.

 

In some ways it's a sin to paint such lovely vehicles faded black, but I'd like to use them on LB, and that's how they must be.

 

I've investigated further how to make them, and my most sincere compliments. I've seen very few kits so well-designed.     

 

Hi Tony,

 

Given your knowledge of the limited nature of infrastructure changes in the 40's and 50's, have you ever been tempted towards an alternate pre-war set of stock for LB? 

 

That would enable you to model the products of Messrs Ivatt and Howlden in non-black liveries.  The only Thompson rebuilds would be B12s and D16s, which somehow look very Gresleyish and you could build one of Danny Pinnock's dynanometer car kits and recreate a famous event which took place the other side of the garden fence.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tony,

 

Given your knowledge of the limited nature of infrastructure changes in the 40's and 50's, have you ever been tempted towards an alternate pre-war set of stock for LB? 

 

That would enable you to model the products of Messrs Ivatt and Howlden in non-black liveries.  The only Thompson rebuilds would be B12s and D16s, which somehow look very Gresleyish and you could build one of Danny Pinnock's dynanometer car kits and recreate a famous event which took place the other side of the garden fence.......

Since I'm involved in a small way with the Grantham project, that layout satisfies my pre-War LNER interest; to the extent that I've already built at least five locos which run on it. 

 

I was born in 1946, so have no tangible memory of the LNER, and obviously none pre-War. I do have a strong memory of apple green B1s passing through Kiveton Park (they must have been new-builds, but lettered 'British Railways') but my principal modelling motivation is to try and recreate what I saw as a trainspotter. That means A2/2s rather than P2s, locos in BR green or black, passenger stock in carmine, carmine and cream or maroon and BR regional colours on the stations. 

 

It would be possible to have LB pre-War, though a couple of upper-quadrant signals would have to be changed to somersaults. However, I don't have enough life left to build all the sets and locos I'd need for an LNER heyday depiction. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest weekend, perhaps? Though would need some very good planning!

Mike,

 

One of the greatest of pleasures for me is to have guest locos and stock running on Little Bytham. There are always two unoccupied roads in the fiddle yard (through roads for trains in the kick-back sidings), one Up and one Down. These are used to run the guest locos and trains, and those sets are always of the greatest interest to me. I've mentioned before that some guests are DCC - no matter, though all the functions aren't there, the locos still run quite happily.

 

As for a complete 'takeover' of, say, LNER locos and stock, you're right, some very good planning (and preparation) would be needed. I've just done a quick 'fag-packet' calculation. Some 40 locos are on the tracks at any one time, there are 92 carriages forming Up passenger trains and over 160 wagons/vans forming Up goods trains. There are just over 100 carriages forming Down passenger trains and over 160 wagons forming Down goods trains. This figure doesn't include wagons/vans standing in the sidings. All of these locos and trains would have to be removed and replaced, so it's probably not feasible.

 

What staggers me, looking over the above list, is that I've made/modified almost all the locos and carriages on the layout. Did I have a life?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...