Wright writes.....

[jwealleans]

Dan Pinnock's next 4mm list is intended to be NER carriages.

[Enterprisingwestern]

Re the RTR v kit building debate, to paraphrase a well known saying;

"The man who never made a mistake never built a model railway kit"

 

Mike.

[grahame]

Re the RTR v kit building debate, to paraphrase a well known saying;

"The man who never made a mistake never built a model railway kit"

.

I have to constantly model to disguise and cover up my mistakes.

 

 

G

[Tony Wright]

No clerestories in these shots on the ECML from the early '50s I'm afraid, but what a remarkable selection.......................

 

 

An empty stock train, north of Thirsk in 1953. The newest and oldest carriages in this train would appear to be coupled together.

 

 

An express heading north at Wood Green in 1952. Several of these cars would still appear to be in teak/brown.

 

Anyone like to identify what's what in both shots?

[Headstock]

Re the posts on ex NER coaches in BR days.

Yes, I should have said "non gangwayed" stock. My timescale is 1955 _61,or so, and I have plenty of photos of what seem to be NER coaches on local services..but none with clerestory roofs. My search for what be an appropriate first full kit built coach goes on, influenced by this thread.

Dave Alexander intended to introduce the North Tyneside Electric Artic sets, but this now looks improbable. There are some on Shapeways but at a high price,in my view,for body only kits.

 

Something like this perhaps? They were excellent carriages, almost an unofficial LNER standard, being transferred to most operating areas and still going strong in at least part of your time period. The LNER's own non gangway stock were probably more influenced by these than the proceeding GN stock.

[DougN]

As non corridor carriages of the NER is a side interest of mine. I have built a number of the a D& S clerestory coaches and a couple of the arc roof stock. The carriages are lovely to build. I find the arc roofed coaches seem to be very similar to other companies at grouping, ie the NER and the GNR along with the GER have a similar resemblance that is difficult to pick to my eyes.

[APOLLO]

Found by accident this previous rmweb thread - some good interesting photos of early BR eastern region clerestory coaches, around 1948 ish

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/87874-clerestory-coaches-on-the-eastern-region-early-br/

 

I'm sure I have seen photos in one of my books of such coaches on workers trains from Wigan Central to Irlam (steel works) in the late 40's early 50's. I'll have a look later today

 

Brit15

[Clive Mortimore]

No clerestories in these shots on the ECML from the early '50s I'm afraid, but what a remarkable selection.......................

 

old carriages 01.jpg

 

An empty stock train, north of Thirsk in 1953. The newest and oldest carriages in this train would appear to be coupled together.

 

old carriages 02.jpg

 

An express heading north at Wood Green in 1952. Several of these cars would still appear to be in teak/brown.

 

Anyone like to identify what's what in both shots?

Hello Tony

 

In the top photo the stock looks like, an LMS BG, a conversion of a pre grouping ex ambulance train (possibly ex L&YR), a NER bogie CCT, a SR PMV or CCT, a LNER CCT a GNR 6 wheeled BZ and clueless beyond that.

 

Second photo, some LNER stock. :dontknow:

 

 

Edit, forgot to mention the lovely flat bottom rail with what look like St baseplates and KT clips.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Clive Mortimore

[robertcwp]

I am informed that the second carriage is an NER Diag 14 third:

 

67630_Craigentinny_c1948 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

[Headstock]

No clerestories in these shots on the ECML from the early '50s I'm afraid, but what a remarkable selection.......................

 

old carriages 01.jpg

 

An empty stock train, north of Thirsk in 1953. The newest and oldest carriages in this train would appear to be coupled together.

 

old carriages 02.jpg

 

An express heading north at Wood Green in 1952. Several of these cars would still appear to be in teak/brown.

 

Anyone like to identify what's what in both shots?

 

I'm sure that these two photographs have been done before. I would go with LMS BG, GN Milk brake, SR CCT, LNER CCT (early type), GN bogie van and 4x MK1's.

 

Second Photo, 2x GN, LNER Gresley crimson cream , GER, LNER end door Gresley (open?) LNER Thompson, 3X LNER Gresley, (2 in crimson and cream).

Edited January 20, 2019 by Headstock

[thegreenhowards]

My main question regarding lamps is if you have a terminus station and changing the displayed lamps isn't an option which is better? No lamps at all or having lamps on both front and rear of the locomotives? (And by extension tail lamps on front and rear of the trains)

Both options are wrong so what do you do if taking lamps on and off isn't an option? In effect, which is the lesser of the two 'evils' so to speak?

I recognise the problem, and IMHO life’s too short to be changing lamps every time a train turns round. OK the real railway did so, but they had an army of staff!

 

Personally I think that no lamps looks ‘naked’, so lamps on both ends is the lesser of the two evils. Most of my trains run round and round so it’s not a problem, but on those that terminate I have a lamp on each end of the loco and the train. The ones on the back of the loco/ front of the train are largely hidden when not needed, so it’s not a great problem. The push pull is a bigger problem, but that just gets class 2 lamps on both ends - how often does one photograph the back of the train?!

 

I’ll probably be put in the naughty corner now, but I will be there ‘defiantly’!

 

Andy

[31A]

No clerestories in these shots on the ECML from the early '50s I'm afraid, but what a remarkable selection.......................

 

old carriages 01.jpg

 

An empty stock train, north of Thirsk in 1953. The newest and oldest carriages in this train would appear to be coupled together.

 

old carriages 02.jpg

 

An express heading north at Wood Green in 1952. Several of these cars would still appear to be in teak/brown.

 

Anyone like to identify what's what in both shots?

 

 

OK I'll have a go!

 

Top picture, from the loco backwards:

 

GE WW1 Ambulance Car converted into Full Brake

GN bogie "Milk Train Brake" full brake (D&S made a kit for these) - four sets of hinged doors.

SR PMV or CCT

LNER Dia. 86 "General Van" (D& S made a kit for these, too)

GN (or possibly ECJS?) bogie full brake - looks too long for a six wheeler.

BR Mk1 of some sort.

Three more passenger coaches - the first two of which at least could be of Thompson "Flying Scotsman" type as the sides seem to be extended down over the solebars - the step boards appear to stick out from the sides panelling!

 

Second picture;

 

A right mixture!  The first two, ex GN (or ECJS) side corridor coaches; the leading one being a Brake.

Third - relatively modern LNER "Gresley" gangwayed coach with angle iron underframe.

Fourth - difficult to tell, could be ex GE but there would then be gangway compatability problems.

Beyond that, even more difficult to tell except that number six looks like a Thompson of some sort.

 

Re. head and tail lamps, I use Springside ones drilled out; on a few I have Superglued strips of etch scrap inside the hole which tends to stop them spinning round.  I change them with tweezers.  Here 61138 runs tender first towards the shed, with "Light Engine" headlamp on the tender and tail lamp over the Driver's side buffer - the Fireman put it there as he could reach from the station platform after the train had arrived!  I must admit I haven't changed the chimney, or the dome.  Apologies in advance for the coupling on the tender which is a necessary evil, but I have shortened it to reduce as much as possible the gap between buffers.

 

 

 

I haven't worked out yet how to change the headcode discs on Diesels, let alone 4-character head codes, but do put oil tail lamps on the rear of DMUs (with the electric ones disabled).  I must admit I do put drivers in the cabs at either end; the one in the back being a driver (or other railwayman) "on the cushions" - I seem to remember being sometimes thwarted of a rearwards view as a passenger, when this happened!

[Tony Wright]

I recognise the problem, and IMHO life’s too short to be changing lamps every time a train turns round. OK the real railway did so, but they had an army of staff!

 

Personally I think that no lamps looks ‘naked’, so lamps on both ends is the lesser of the two evils. Most of my trains run round and round so it’s not a problem, but on those that terminate I have a lamp on each end of the loco and the train. The ones on the back of the loco/ front of the train are largely hidden when not needed, so it’s not a great problem. The push pull is a bigger problem, but that just gets class 2 lamps on both ends - how often does one photograph the back of the train?!

 

I’ll probably be put in the naughty corner now, but I will be there ‘defiantly’!

 

Andy

Completely agree, Andy,

 

The last movement (a new one) on LB's sequence replicates a train which was a special, running from Little Bytham to London. It picked up passengers at Essendine and then ran non-stop to Kings Cross. On the way back, however, returning passengers were expected to use a service train as far as Peterborough, and then board a shorter special from there to LB, stopping at Essendine. The rake then returned to Peterborough empty stock. Thus, I have a loco, lamped up at one end for a stopping passenger and at the other for empty stock. The rake has a tail lamp at both ends.

 

The loco stops, uncouples, runs round its train in the station, re-couples and then disappears off south. Wrong, I know, but better than no lamps at all.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Tony Wright

[Headstock]

I would agree with the diag 86 general van, I forgot that they didn't have end doors. The passenger carriages a definitely MK1's, wrong end profile and the windows are too deep for Thompson's.
 

[Tony Wright]

I've just finished renumbering/renaming this Hornby Brit for a friend. 

 

 

It started off as 70050 FIRTH OF CLYDE, so the big tender is correct. I rather think the device on the tender should be the later one for 1958, but altering that was not on the brief. The transfers and 'plates are from Fox.

 

My friend is more than capable of completing the alterations, but he asked me if I'd like to do it as part of my demonstrating at shows. Not having set-up for applying transfers, I've done it at home. 

 

There are firms which offer such a service, and good on them - for, it would seem, their services are needed. However, I really am surprised that folk cannot do this kind of thing for themselves. Removing the original numbers (with a scalpel) takes care, but the replacement numbers cover any slight marks and the five digits are all in one piece on the transfer. The nameplates are affixed with tiny dabs of Evo Stik, applied to the backs of the 'plates and the deflectors, and left to dry for a minute or two - then brought together. The same is so for the front 'plate.

 

Why should this kind of half-hour job appear to be beyond so many modellers? A tricky question; no doubt one which will 'outrage' some. 

[Tony Wright]

I would agree with the diag 86 general van, I forgot that they didn't have end doors. The passenger carriages a definitely MK1's, wrong end profile and the windows are too deep for Thompson's.

 

I'm not sure about their being Mk.1s, Andrew.

 

I've blown the picture right up (though it rapidly deteriorates) and the footboard positions seem more Thompson than Mk.1 to me. The roof profile is also different from the (definite) Mk. 1 car ahead of them.

 

Who knows? But what a wonderful mixture.

 

I think you're right, as well, in my having shown this shot before, but there are always new readers to this thread. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[RBAGE]

  

 

Reply to 31607

Edited January 20, 2019 by RBAGE

[Chamby]

I recognise the problem, and IMHO life’s too short to be changing lamps every time a train turns round. OK the real railway did so, but they had an army of staff!

Personally I think that no lamps looks ‘naked’, so lamps on both ends is the lesser of the two evils. Most of my trains run round and round so it’s not a problem, but on those that terminate I have a lamp on each end of the loco and the train. The ones on the back of the loco/ front of the train are largely hidden when not needed, so it’s not a great problem. The push pull is a bigger problem, but that just gets class 2 lamps on both ends - how often does one photograph the back of the train?!

I’ll probably be put in the naughty corner now, but I will be there ‘defiantly’!

Andy

I fully agree that lamps front and rear is the lesser of two evils. Especially if the lamps are weathered sonewhat so that the double lamping (?) is less obvious at first glance. Shiny white Springside lamps with over-scale handles are best avoided in this application, I suggest!

 

Phil

[Arun Sharma]

I've just finished renumbering/renaming this Hornby Brit for a friend. 

 

Britannia 70048.jpg

 

It started off as 70050 FIRTH OF CLYDE, so the big tender is correct. I rather think the device on the tender should be the later one for 1958, but altering that was not on the brief. The transfers and 'plates are from Fox.

 

My friend is more than capable of completing the alterations, but he asked me if I'd like to do it as part of my demonstrating at shows. Not having set-up for applying transfers, I've done it at home. 

 

There are firms which offer such a service, and good on them - for, it would seem, their services are needed. However, I really am surprised that folk cannot do this kind of thing for themselves. Removing the original numbers (with a scalpel) takes care, but the replacement numbers cover any slight marks and the five digits are all in one piece on the transfer. The nameplates are affixed with tiny dabs of Evo Stik, applied to the backs of the 'plates and the deflectors, and left to dry for a minute or two - then brought together. The same is so for the front 'plate.

 

Why should this kind of half-hour job appear to be beyond so many modellers? A tricky question; no doubt one which will 'outrage' some. 

I would guess that the main reason for not wanting to do a straightforward conversion such as renumbering/changing of crests is the fear of having to touch up paintwork afterwards - especially if approaching models with a scalpel.

Personally, I have no problems approaching locos [and people] with scalpels of course. Getting an exact paint match could be seen as problematic by people who don't paint complete models anyway. Whilst any small areas of mismatch could readily be obscured by a judicious bit of weathering, how many folk do actually weather their models? I suspect most RTR models stay in "as bought condition" for the whole of their lives.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Arun Sharma

[Headstock]

I'm not sure about their being Mk.1s, Andrew.

 

I've blown the picture right up (though it rapidly deteriorates) and the footboard positions seem more Thompson than Mk.1 to me. The roof profile is also different from the (definite) Mk. 1 car ahead of them.

 

Who knows? But what a wonderful mixture.

 

I think you're right, as well, in my having shown this shot before, but there are always new readers to this thread. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

It sounds like a reasonable argument.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Headstock

[newbryford]

Re the RTR v kit building debate, to paraphrase a well known saying;

"The man who never made a mistake never built a model railway kit  bought a MTK kit"

 

Mike.

 

There - I've corrected it for you...………

 

Cheers,

Mick

[RBAGE]

I would guess that the main reason for not wanting to do a straightforward conversion such as renumbering/changing of crests is the fear of having to touch up paintwork afterwards - especially if approaching models with a scalpel.

Personally, I have no problems approaching locos [and people] with scalpels of course. Getting an exact paint match could be seen as problematic by people who don't paint complete models anyway. Whilst any small areas of mismatch could readily be obscured by a judicious bit of weathering, how many folk do actually weather their models? I suspect most RTR models stay in "as bought condition" for the whole of their lives.

I use T-cut to remove the old branding. It leaves a semi gloss surface so that the new transfers take very well. 

The semi matt appearance applied to many RTR models means that the semi gloss patch looks a bit odd. A quick waft with matt or semi matt vanish should make this less apparent.

Then try do do something with the factory weathering for a more appropriate appearance.

Work in progress.

[sandra]

I've just finished renumbering/renaming this Hornby Brit for a friend. 

 

Britannia 70048.jpg

 

It started off as 70050 FIRTH OF CLYDE, so the big tender is correct. I rather think the device on the tender should be the later one for 1958, but altering that was not on the brief. The transfers and 'plates are from Fox.

 

My friend is more than capable of completing the alterations, but he asked me if I'd like to do it as part of my demonstrating at shows. Not having set-up for applying transfers, I've done it at home. 

 

There are firms which offer such a service, and good on them - for, it would seem, their services are needed. However, I really am surprised that folk cannot do this kind of thing for themselves. Removing the original numbers (with a scalpel) takes care, but the replacement numbers cover any slight marks and the five digits are all in one piece on the transfer. The nameplates are affixed with tiny dabs of Evo Stik, applied to the backs of the 'plates and the deflectors, and left to dry for a minute or two - then brought together. The same is so for the front 'plate.

 

Why should this kind of half-hour job appear to be beyond so many modellers? A tricky question; no doubt one which will 'outrage' some.

 

Tony,

 

I agree with you but I do think some people simply lack confidence in their own ability to do a reasonable job and they fear damaging the model and thus reducing is potential value if sold.

 

I am often surprised at how often people on this forum refer to selling their models on and if you renumber or rename a model it no longer corresponds to its catalogue number and therefore is of no interest to collectors and this could reduce its potential value. I agree with Arun Sharma in thinking that most RTR models stay unaltered throughout their lives.

 

I model in EM and thus when I convert stock to EM and rename and renumber it I immediately reduce the value of that stock but as I’ve no intention of selling it, it does not bother me.

 

Sandra

[jamie92208]

There - I've corrected it for you...………

 

Cheers,

Mick

Other kit manufacturers are available but the law of libel applies.

 

 

Jamie

[Headstock]

I've commenced construction on what will be my final train build, what an appropriate way to bow out with one of my favorite carriages, the dia 40 a Gresley 3 compartment BTK.

It will be the leading brake in a five set (BTK 3, CK 3 1/2-4, 2 X TK(8), BTK 6 ) that will compliment the three set built last year. Along with the twin awaiting painting, it will round off the ordinary passenger train formations working between Leicester, Rugby, Woodford and Marylebone. The only thing currently missing is a ex GC BT from the non gangway 3 sets but you can't win them all.

The model is basically Comet sides grafted on to MJT components, though I have used MJT drop lights in preference to the Comet ones, due to the opening in the latter being too small. The vac pipe is still to be added to the solebar and the vent hoods need to be added above the doors, hopefully without melting the cornice. It can then be cleaned up ready for undercoating. Hopefully I will get a couple of carriages finished before mixing up a new batch of teak.

 

Edited to add.  It also requires buffers.
 

Edited February 1, 2019 by Headstock