Wright writes.....

[MikeTrice]

As far as I am aware the profile of the full brakes matched the brake portion of normal carriages. The turnunders are consistent however it is the different widths just under the cornice that makes them appear flatter. This photo shows the differing profiles at the join:

 

[gr.king]

I have nothing in principle against the beautifully crisp, multi-layer sides that can be built up from etched brass kits, and the careful soldering that is needed doesn't defeat me, nor does the care that is needed in forming the tumblehome or turn-under. It seems to me however that it is impossible to deny that a well moulded plastic or resin side including all of the panel relief and beading is quicker and easier to deal with when building a coach. It is also likely to be cheaper too, and providing the problem of getting the glazing in something like the correct plane is properly addressed, a plastic or resin side would be preferable, even being free of the need for etching primer or other special measures to encourage the paint to cling on.

[Headstock]

As far as I am aware the profile of the full brakes matched the brake portion of normal carriages. The turnunders are consistent however it is the different widths just under the cornice that makes them appear flatter. This photo shows the differing profiles at the join:

100_2079.JPG

 

I would agree, just failing to describe it properly. I have a G  A that I am certain makes this clear, but I can't locate it at present.

 

I have nothing in principle against the beautifully crisp, multi-layer sides that can be built up from etched brass kits, and the careful soldering that is needed doesn't defeat me, nor does the care that is needed in forming the tumblehome or turn-under. It seems to me however that it is impossible to deny that a well moulded plastic or resin side including all of the panel relief and beading is quicker and easier to deal with when building a coach. It is also likely to be cheaper too, and providing the problem of getting the glazing in something like the correct plane is properly addressed, a plastic or resin side would be preferable, even being free of the need for etching primer or other special measures to encourage the paint to cling on.

 

Again I would agree, I wouldn't be in favourer of replicating mistakes in old mouldings though, better to start from scratch.

.

[Tony Wright]

As far as I am aware the profile of the full brakes matched the brake portion of normal carriages. The turnunders are consistent however it is the different widths just under the cornice that makes them appear flatter. This photo shows the differing profiles at the join:

100_2079.JPG

Thanks Mike,

 

Your picture illustrates it perfectly.

 

I think the main difference in body profile between the full-width passenger stock and the BGs is the end profile above the waistline, which is almost (probably completely) vertical on the BG, whereas the passenger cars have the end profile above the waistline leaning in towards the cornice. There's still a pronounced tumbleholme below the waistline, which I'd tried to capture using your sides as overlays, and it's only above the waistline that they could be described as slab-sided. 

 

LNER and ER/NER/ScR modellers have much to be grateful for because of your work down the years with LNER carriages, both in drawn form and in etched sides/kits/bogies/detail/roofs/etc. May I, as one, personally thank you, please? 

 

It's not just those regions mentioned, either. In BR days, Gresley carriages/vans could be found anywhere. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited December 29, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

Tony

 

 

They are becoming quite rare on ebay , only one decent version Teak Sleeper at the moment asking price £50 , BR versions are about £35. Suburbans are dearer than Corridor versions.

 

 

 

MJT complete kit about £70 !!

Thanks Mick,

 

So the conversions are economically-viable then? If one can pick up a second-hand (or new?) Hornby gangwayed Gresley for £30.00/£35.00 (or less as Andrew has suggested), and as long as it's not damaged (livery irrelevant) then by using etched sides as overlays, the cost will be considerably less than a complete kit. You'll end up with a better-shaped car or a different diagram. 

 

The process is still worth carrying on with in my opinion, though once started, running unaltered Hornby Gresleys is not then an option, particularly in the same train.  

 

 

This is a 4 Comt Brake Third (shown earlier this year), made from a Hornby BCK as a donor and MJT sides added to it. Though the still-too-wide floor pan/solebars do obtrude, the final body shape is (in my opinion) far superior to the Hornby model at source.

 

 

And how about a Gresley Kitchen Car? Made from a Gresley TK, with MJT sides, heavy-duty bogies and detailing parts. Still cheaper than the complete kit.

 

 

Or another ex-Hornby Gresley TK, this time with Kemilway sides to make an end-door TK. It's hauled by a conversion in itself - one of Graeme King's resin/etched/Bachmann A2 creations, making an A2/3. 

 

All the above are nothing more (or less?) than layout coaches. They all form parts of trains (in some cases, very long) and should (I hope) be judged against that yardstick. None is a glass case model (I don't think I could build such a thing) and, to me, they represent a very cost-effective means of getting the numerous different types required for an 'accurate' ECML depiction of the late-'50s. 

 

 

Of course, were Hornby's Gresleys correct at source, there'd be no need to make brass kits for the same diagrams - in this case a pre-1931-built TK (turnbuckle trussing). Dave Scott did the basic build of this MJT kit, and I built the bogies and the interior detail. Without doubt, Nick Campling's drawings are invaluable.

 

As already-mentioned, an article on making very simple carriage interiors will be appearing in the Spring issue of BRM. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited December 29, 2017 by Tony Wright

[micklner]

Tony

 

Swings and roundabouts spring to mind.

 

You may save about £20 on a complete kit. I have never seen a damaged Gresley Coach of this type(s) advertised on eBay , so cheap ones are presumably very hard to find. 

 

You then have to look at the additional time to convert the Hornby coach . In my opinion it is not a simple build/conversion, in particular if you are doing a Teak version, the painting  will add considerably to the build time. Unless you are doing the exactly the same version, the interior mouldings will need to altered, to the new compartment layout or replaced as would the glazing . Cutting the chassis to correct width was a bit of a pain to do, and in the process you lose all the mounting clips to hold the body on. You then to have to invent a method of holding it all together. Some builders will not like the Hornby plastic bogies/wheels which will again also add to the build cost. The £20 difference disappears very quickly.

 

Hornby haven't issued any Gresley's for quite a while perhaps a new version will appear in the future ? The current prices show there is the demand there, especially for  amended version(s). Hornby adjusted the beading on the Full Brake when they were issued, so you never know what might become available.

 

 I have never seen your BRM article re how you built your conversions.

Edited December 29, 2017 by micklner

[Anglian]

 

 

Gresley 4 Compt Brake Third 01.jpg

 

 

 

Tony,

 

Is there a lens distortion in this image? The second and third larger windows i.e. those between the passenger doors appear to have an angle to them.

Edited December 29, 2017 by Anglian

[Tony Wright]

Tony

 

Swings and roundabouts spring to mind.

 

You may save about £20 on a complete kit. I have never seen a damaged Gresley Coach of this type(s) advertised on eBay , so cheap ones are presumably very hard to find. 

 

You then have to look at the additional time to convert the Hornby coach . In my opinion it is not a simple build/conversion, in particular if you are doing a Teak version, the painting  will add considerably to the build time. Unless you are doing the exactly the same version, the interior mouldings will need to altered, to the new compartment layout or replaced as would the glazing . Cutting the chassis to correct width was a bit of a pain to do, and in the process you lose all the mounting clips to hold the body on. You then to have to invent a method of holding it all together. Some builders will not like the Hornby plastic bogies/wheels which will again also add to the build cost. The £20 difference disappears very quickly.

 

Hornby haven't issued any Gresley's for quite a while perhaps a new version will appear in the future ? The current prices show there is the demand there, especially for  amended version(s). Hornby adjusted the beading on the Full Brake when they were issued, so you never know what might become available.

 

 I have never seen your BRM article re how you built your conversions.

Mick,

 

The article on converting the Hornby Gresleys was in a BRM Annual about four years ago. I can't remember which one, but it described all the processes, including making new body/chassis mountings. 

 

I'm not suggesting it is a simple build/conversion process, but it's no more difficult nor complex than building a complete etched-brass carriage. I agree, any difference in price can be swiftly swallowed up, but I do use the Hornby bogies if appropriate (though I do change the wheels). The fact remains that the conversions do (in my opinion) produce a much more convincingly-shaped carriage than the standard Hornby. I do admit, though, that painting them in BR colours is far simpler than recreating teak. That said, it would appear that Hornby's most recent renditions of teak leave a lot to be desired.

 

The conversions are, of course, far more complex than building a complete plastic Kirk Gresley.

 

The following pictures give a precis of the processes.............

 

 

The sides cut away with circular saw in a mini drill and a Stanley knife.

 

 

The ends shaped with a file to give the correct profile.

 

 

Evo Stik was used in impact mode to secure the sides to the ends, then a bead of thick superglue run along the joint between the top of the sides and the bottom of the roof. 

 

 

My method of joining the 'new' body to the floor pan. 

 

 

The pan must be narrowed to accept the new body. Ideally, I should have cut off the solebars longetudinally, shaved a bit off the width of the pan and glued them back together. 

 

 

The two fixed together. This one was a conversion for Gilbert Barnatt - he uses Kadee couplings.

 

 

 

This conversion made an SO. A new cantrail was made from plastic strip, though brass can be used.

 

 

Two conversions painted with Halfords Ford Burgundy red, straight from the rattle can after priming. 

 

 

A RSO after the roof was brush-painted. Note the new cantrail.

 

 

 

Though I prefer to solder the door furniture in place, Gilbert wanted the handles to be in brass, so I superglued them after lining had taken place. 

 

Many of the brass-fixing procedures are exactly the same as for building a complete kit, so I've omitted these. 

 

I hope all the above helps. 

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

Is there a lens distortion in this image? The second and third larger windows i.e. those between the passenger doors appear to have an angle to them.

Tim,

 

It's not a lens distortion (though the angle exacerbates it), I've just not formed the sides well enough in that area. No matter, I'll dismantle the carriage and adjust the angle. The windows and their surrounds should have a slight angle, anyway, tapering in towards the roof. 

 

One never gets anything for nothing. Take a picture with pieces of kit costing thousands of pounds and there's no hiding place! 

 

Interestingly, elsewhere others have blamed lens aberrations for producing 'bendy' carriages and so on, including wobbly track. In my opinion, that's tosh. Any half-decent camera will give you exactly what it 'sees'. If it's bent or wobbly in the picture, that's because it is!  

Edited December 29, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

 

I think this side is better, but it's more side-on...............

[jukebox]

Tim,

 

It's not a lens distortion (though the angle exacerbates it), I've just not formed the sides well enough in that area. No matter, I'll dismantle the carriage and adjust the angle. The windows and their surrounds should have a slight angle, anyway, tapering in towards the roof. 

 

One never gets anything for nothing. Take a picture with pieces of kit costing thousands of pounds and there's no hiding place! 

 

Interestingly, elsewhere others have blamed lens aberrations for producing 'bendy' carriages and so on, including wobbly track. In my opinion, that's tosh. Any half-decent camera will give you exactly what it 'sees'. If it's bent or wobbly in the picture, that's because it is!  

 

 

Normally, I'd agree with you on this, Tony.  But a few years back, Gilbert managed to produce photos of banana'd carriages under the roof at Peterborough North that defied explanation, as elsewhere on the layout they seemed quite normal.  Some strange illusion was occuring, tho' I dont think it was ever resolved exactly what.

 

Cheers

 

Scott

[Tony Wright]

Normally, I'd agree with you on this, Tony.  But a few years back, Gilbert managed to produce photos of banana'd carriages under the roof at Peterborough North that defied explanation, as elsewhere on the layout they seemed quite normal.  Some strange illusion was occuring, tho' I dont think it was ever resolved exactly what.

 

Cheers

 

Scott

Thanks Scott,

 

I remember the pictures.

 

On close inspection, the carriages weren't entirely dead straight to the naked eye.

 

Lighting, particularly side-lighting can introduce enhanced (unwanted) effects, and certainly some older cameras (some really old) used to produce a blurring-round-the-edges-effect. However, anything modern in the way of camera lenses will tell it 'exactly as it is'. 

 

As I've said before, whenever I think I'm getting anywhere with my modelling, I take a picture (with very powerful cameras) of what I've made and immediately realise (as if I needed to!) that I still have a long way to go. Things which should be uniform (like that coach side) aren't, my soldering looks like a relief map of the Moon in places and things aren't parallel as they should be (just like the real thing?). 

 

In my defence, even the greatest modellers don't always get it right. On taking a picture for Pete Waterman (apologies for the name dropping, but I did photograph his complete collection) of an LMS Garratt recently-commissioned in Gauge O from the peerless Geoff Holt, two prominent fixing screws became visible beneath the front and rear buffer beams (unnoticed, until lit). It went straight back! 'Thanks Tone', was the response from Geoff. 

 

My point still remains (and my thanks for agreeing with me), instead of blaming camera/lens optical aberrations for out-of-kilter modelling, we should look at those models and realise they're not quite as good as our eyes might lead us to believe. 

 

The following examples should prove this.....................

 

 

At first glance, the Elizabethan rake I made a quarter of a century ago might seem reasonably uniform. 

 

 

Until its picture is taken in tight perspective. The fourth car (an RSO) particularly appears to be made of rubber, as do some of the others!

 

 

When I built JOHN BUNYAN I could have sworn I got the horizontal handrails parallel with the footplate, the chime whistle was fixed as it should be and the cab was parallel at its base with the footplate valence. 

 

 

And that I didn't introduce a 'banana-shaped' bend in the central footplate section of this V2. As for the first carriage in the train, what's happened to the solebar (and where are its steps?). 

 

 

I should be able to make pairs of articulated carriages ride at a uniform height, shouldn't I? 

 

I might add that nobody notices these things as they bowl by spectators' eyes. It really is the camera showing us exactly what these things are really like.

 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited December 30, 2017 by Tony Wright

[The Johnster]

If it's any consolation, these sort of anomalies sometimes turn up in photos of real trains, though it usually uneven track that is the culprit here, as well as the way that vehicles rock and pitch at any sort of speed.

[Lecorbusier]

 It really is the camera showing us exactly what these things are really like.

 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I can't possibly agree with you hear Tony .......  though I agree with everything you have said.

 

The camera never lies (unless of course you want it to) .... but unless you are extremely skilful and have a superb eye it also never tells the truth.

 

How often do you see a picture of a friend/family member only to say 'that is nothing like you' .... same with pictures of places - you sift through for those which give a feel of what it was really like!

 

... and that's before we even get on to the fact that the prototype itself was regularly all over the place.

 

Furthermore, while I think taking photos (particularly foreshortened photos) is a great aid to model making,  I would hazard a guess that if our skills were such that we could actually achieve perfection when viewed by this means, the resultant model would look too perfect and strangely false/unrealistic. Thank the lord for the foibles and faults of the craftsman - Ruskin perhaps had a point?

Edited December 30, 2017 by Lecorbusier

[Jol Wilkinson]

Tony,

 

presumably you  have no experience of the special type of camera used by Estate Agents. They can make properties, rooms, gardens, etc. look larger, brighter and generally better than  they really are. Perhaps we should all get one for photographing our layouts.

 

Happy New Year,

 

Jol

[Tony Wright]

I can't possibly agree with you hear Tony .......  though I agree with everything you have said.

 

The camera never lies (unless of course you want it to) .... but unless you are extremely skilful and have a superb eye it also never tells the truth.

 

How often do you see a picture of a friend/family member only to say that is nothing like you .... same with pictures of places - you sift through for those which give a feel of what it was really like!

 

... and that's before we even get on to the fact that the prototype itself was regularly all over the place.

 

Furthermore, I think taking photos (particularly foreshortened photos) is a great aid to model making, but I would hazard a guess that if our skills were such that we could actually achieve perfection when viewed by this means, the resultant model would look too perfect and strangely false/unrealistic. Thank the lord for the foibles and faults of the craftsman - Ruskin perhaps had a point?

Thanks Tim,

 

I think what you've said confirms my belief in preferring models which have been hand-made, rather than factory-finished. The latter are almost too perfect. Take A4s or (particularly) Bulleid's original Pacifics. The casings have dents, buckles and all sorts of anomalies in their shapes, especially highlighted when they're clean. I've made umpteen examples of both types (and Q1s) and, though I don't deliberately introduce wrinkles, they appear as an inevitable consequence of my making them (usually highlighted even more so after painting). 

 

One can own as many models of locos and stock which originate by RTR means as one likes (and, as I've said many times, there is great merit in altering things for oneself), but they never have the personal 'imperfections' which hand-made equivalents have, and, thus, never have the same appeal - at least to me. 

 

And, I'll continue to take pictures with my most 'honest' of cameras. 

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

presumably you  have no experience of the special type of camera used by Estate Agents. They can make properties, rooms, gardens, etc. look larger, brighter and generally better than  they really are. Perhaps we should all get one for photographing our layouts.

 

Happy New Year,

 

Jol

A Happy New Year to you and yours Jol, and to everyone else. 

 

I do have some little experience of 'cheating' cameras, or, at least, cheating lenses. 

 

In my days as Warners' staff photographer, part of my duties was to take pictures of motor-homes and caravans. My publisher always told me to 'keep my mouth shut' when taking pictures, because I cannot stand either form of transport/life-style (I'd personally ban the lot from the roads or introduce tariffs so swingeing that they'd ban themselves). 

 

One day, on taking pictures of a van-conversion's interior, the maker said I hadn't made it look big enough (it was a Transit Van made into a motor-home - why?). I'd used a 50mm standard lens on my Nikon DSLR, and there was no distortion or trickery - it was an accurate image. 'That's no good', said the maker. 

 

So, I invested in an 18mm wide-angle lens, not quite a fish-eye, but not far off, and took some further pictures. 'Great' said he, 'just what's needed'. When I pointed out that it looked like his carpenters couldn't strike a perpendicular and the whole thing appeared like the inside of a balloon, he just didn't care. 'It looks big, and that's what I want for my brochure!' 

 

Thus, I agree entirely with you, that some lenses deliberately introduce distortion, but anyone with any perceptive ability (buyers of motor-homes/caravans?) will know that. When I take pictures of my models, I know the lenses I use don't produce aberrations (the 55mm Micro is as near one-to-one with the human eye as possible), and any 'banana-shaped' items are really banana-shaped. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[jamie92208]

That's interesting about lenses Tony. My father had an old Sanderson plate camera that had bellows and went on a tripod and he focused through a ground glass screen while under a hood. However it had what was called a rising front to avoid converging verticals when taking photos of buildings. The results were very good but each photo took an age. I believe that he got the camera from his cousin who was a freelance on Fleet Street from the 1920's onwards.

 

Jamie

[Lecorbusier]

... because I cannot stand either form of transport/life-style (I'd personally ban the lot from the roads or introduce tariffs so swingeing that they'd ban themselves). 

 

...... but anyone with any perceptive ability (buyers of motor-homes/caravans?) will know that.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Yikes! ..... message to self .... no more mentions of my beloved VW Bus  

 

but then  - oh what the hell    ..... the open road, adventure and exotic places - all at an affordable price  .... plus, believe it or not, everyone (apart from Tony) smiling and waving at you.

 

[Penlan]

....... we should look at those models and realise they're not quite as good as our eyes might lead us to believe. 

 

Elizabethan 01.jpg

The track making a sharp exit off right probably looks just right at any other time.   

PS - Before it reaches the slip.

But, I live in a glass'less Glasshouse with a gravel floor.

Edited December 30, 2017 by Penlan

[Tony Wright]

Yikes! ..... message to self .... no more mentions of my beloved VW Bus  

 

but then  - oh what the hell    ..... the open road, adventure and exotic places - all at an affordable price  .... plus, believe it or not, everyone (apart from Tony) smiling and waving at you.

 

20170804_145936.jpgDSCN1959.jpgDSC_0273.jpg

It looks a great lifestyle, Tim (though not for me).

 

My comments are more directed at caravans-pullers, though the motor home I drove on test (yes, I'll do anything for money - well, almost anything) would have reached 0-60 mph if I'd have driven it over a cliff! 

 

Why do these folk revel in the 'open road' idea. Yes, open to them, but not to others. Have you ever driven from Barrow to Whitehaven behind a succession of caravans, even in a (potentially) fast car? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Andrew P]

Yikes! ..... message to self .... no more mentions of my beloved VW Bus  

 

but then  - oh what the hell    ..... the open road, adventure and exotic places - all at an affordable price  .... plus, believe it or not, everyone (apart from Tony) smiling and waving at you.

 

20170804_145936.jpgDSCN1959.jpgDSC_0273.jpg

 

It looks a great lifestyle, Tim (though not for me).

 

My comments are more directed at caravans-pullers, though the motor home I drove on test (yes, I'll do anything for money - well, almost anything) would have reached 0-60 mph if I'd have driven it over a cliff! 

 

Why do these folk revel in the 'open road' idea. Yes, open to them, but not to others. Have you ever driven from Barrow to Whitehaven behind a succession of caravans, even in a (potentially) fast car? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hi All There is a Thread I set up just before Christmas for things and Other Hobbies like this, I've had a lots of different Hobbies posted so far, this could be yet another, away from Railways.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/129337-and-my-other-hobby-is/page-1

[Clive Mortimore]

Yikes! ..... message to self .... no more mentions of my beloved VW Bus  

 

but then  - oh what the hell    ..... the open road, adventure and exotic places - all at an affordable price  .... plus, believe it or not, everyone (apart from Tony) smiling and waving at you.

 

20170804_145936.jpgDSCN1959.jpgDSC_0273.j

Hi Tim

 

Are you sure they were not all like me and possibly Tony, laughing and jestering "Thank goodness he is not parking here".

 

Despite my nan saying we have Roma roots the thought of dragging or traveling in my home even for a holiday does not appeal. As for anyone suggesting living under canvas...... (not RMweb words) .

 

Those who do enjoy camper homes etc. carry on having fun.

[Lecorbusier]

It looks a great lifestyle, Tim (though not for me).

 

My comments are more directed at caravans-pullers, though the motor home I drove on test (yes, I'll do anything for money - well, almost anything) would have reached 0-60 mph if I'd have driven it over a cliff! 

 

Why do these folk revel in the 'open road' idea. Yes, open to them, but not to others. Have you ever driven from Barrow to Whitehaven behind a succession of caravans, even in a (potentially) fast car? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony,

 

I drove down to Dartmoor over Christmas (not in the camper) to see the aged parents - they would regard you as a spring chicken!  When not on the motorway it was crawling tail to bumper in traffic and not a van in site! We need to get more people on the railways so that the joy of motoring can re-emerge.

 

For myself the whole thing about the van is to be off the beaten track away from other road users ... so either in the slow lane of the motorway to get somewhere (65mph) or on minor roads with hardly anyone else around and far too winding for chimera style hi-jinx! .... anyway I built myself a souped up mini cooper for that - Top speed not great but acceleration and road holding was great! 

 

I was looking at some of the documentaries made about Beeching over christmas and they really highlighted the miscalculation over the exponential rise in car usage!

[Lecorbusier]

Hi Tim

 

Are you sure they were not all like me and possibly Tony, laughing and jestering "Thank goodness he is not parking here".

 

Despite my nan saying we have Roma roots the thought of dragging or traveling in my home even for a holiday does not appeal. As for anyone suggesting living under canvas...... (not RMweb words) .

 

Those who do enjoy camper homes etc. carry on having fun.

Ah Clive .... but you see I enjoy rock climbing and mountaineering as well - not to mention cycle touring    ... so in that sense the camper might be regarded as luxury! .... sad I know