Wright writes.....

[St Enodoc]

6 hours ago, Buhar said:

The LMS was a big user of vestibule (open) stock although why a full brake with gangways wouldn't have been suitable, I don't know. 

Perhaps the shafts were too long for a BG.

[jamie92208]

5 hours ago, manna said:

G'Day Folks

 

I did have a 30' yacht mast, in an older type DMU , we managed to squeeze it into the DMU via the brake van double doors, but being so long, it went half way down the passenger compartment aisle, certainly had to watch my step when collecting tickets. I always wondered why a Yacht mast was in Huddersfield, with a ticket to Leeds !!

 

manna

Having lived and worked in Huddersfield at various points nothing would have surprised me. At least you didn't have the runaway Vietnamese pot bellied pig that we had to deal with one day.

 

Jamie

[4630]

27 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

Having lived and worked in Huddersfield at various points nothing would have surprised me. At least you didn't have the runaway Vietnamese pot bellied pig that we had to deal with one day.

 

Jamie

 

You’ll not be surprised to learn Jamie that not much has changed since you moved on.  These days, in some parts of the town, its akin to living in the Wild West.  Sadly without the benefit of having Wyatt Earp around!  

 

Still, it does possess a railway station building that Sir John Betjeman described as “...the most splendid in England.”

 

 

Edited April 17, 2019 by 4630
To correct a typo.

[Clive Mortimore]

8 hours ago, rockershovel said:

A propos the longest load carried on passenger services, the late Chas Mortimer’s book “Brooklands and Beyond”  has a section about carrying propellor shafts for wartime Motor Torpedo Boats in the corridors of LMS passenger services, by suitable “negotiation” with the railway authorities, involving loading them through the corridor connections at Euston. I’ve never quite understood this - would they have been open saloons like the later BR ones? 

 

How long is a prop shaft on a 70 foot boat when the engine is midship? At most 20 foot.

[Mallard60022]

9 hours ago, rockershovel said:

A propos the longest load carried on passenger services, the late Chas Mortimer’s book “Brooklands and Beyond”  has a section about carrying propellor shafts for wartime Motor Torpedo Boats in the corridors of LMS passenger services, by suitable “negotiation” with the railway authorities, involving loading them through the corridor connections at Euston. I’ve never quite understood this - would they have been open saloons like the later BR ones? 

 

Got to have been BGs. I doubt that the LMS would have sanctioned bloody great prop shafts sitting in an Open Saloon. The BGs would have been able to accommodate several (weight restriction I suppose?) but a saloon walkway, two or three perhaps? Bit of ".....send three and fourpence....."  happening over the years resulting in that book statement I should think. Fascinating though.

Phil

[MarkC]

7 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

 

In the late 1960s I worked for British and Commonwealth who owned Union Castle and I would have described their hull colour as mauve rather than pink so with more blue than red.

B & C's mailboat men sometimes referred to themselves as "The Lavender Hull Mob"

 

It was a gorgeous and distinctive colour, which suited the ships well.

[Clive Mortimore]

4 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

Got to have been BGs. I doubt that the LMS would have sanctioned bloody great prop shafts sitting in an Open Saloon. The BGs would have been able to accommodate several (weight restriction I suppose?) but a saloon walkway, two or three perhaps? Bit of ".....send three and fourpence....."  happening over the years resulting in that book statement I should think. Fascinating though.

Phil

Prop shafts are a well engineered bit of kit, they would have been shipped in designed packing cases, possibly in plate or pipe type long open wagons. Not laid on the floor of a passenger coach.

[Mallard60022]

2 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Prop shafts are a well engineered bit of kit, they would have been shipped in designed packing cases, possibly in plate or pipe type long open wagons. Not laid on the floor of a passenger coach.

Possible though that they needed to get the stuff delivered at 'speed'? BGs could have been transferred across Regions as well as could wagons of course.

Phil

[Compound2632]

Mk1 not LMS, but what I said.

[Tony Wright]

11 hours ago, Dave John said:

Well, are we becoming marginalised, or does it just appear that way since there is now so much media in which people can show rtr stock on their layouts? I accept you have to dig a bit to find kit and scratch building but I think there are still a lot of people who do like to make things rather than buy them . ( Across all modelling hobbies, not just railways) . I think what may be happening to an extent is that the rtr stuff has improved so much over the last 20 years or so that many modellers feel they cannot compete in terms of accuracy or finish with rtr and are maybe reluctant to display their work. 

 

Really, they shouldn't worry. I love to see what others have made. I like to see something that reflects the modelmaker, not a manufacturer. Give me character and invention over mass produced perfection any day. 

 

So, since you invited us to post here is a largely scratchbuilt Dunalastair 1. I had a go at turning it into a period picture to compare it to real period pictures just for fun. 

 

What a wonderful photo of a wonderful model, Dave,

 

My thanks for posting.

 

I take it it's at (or a representation of) Glasgow Central. I mention that because the buildings look very similar to those bordering the great station on the eastern side (now replaced by the Jury's Inn, which we stay in when attending the Glasgow Show). 

 

I agree entirely with your comments, and they reiterate my point to an extent; that is, current RTR standards are much higher than most can achieve. Indeed, it would take a highly-skilled craftsman/woman to match what's currently available. That said, and as you so rightly observe, it's much more interesting to see models which folk have made/modified themselves. I can see everything RTR on the box-shifters' stands at shows, and there's much of it now on layouts. I don't mind if it's been personally-altered, but just plonking down a just-bought loco on a layout is not on in my view, especially when folk have paid to see it!

 

 

This is a scene on a beautifully-observed layout depicting the SR in the '30s. Most of the structures on it have been scratch-built. I've photographed it for a magazine. One of the club members running it had just bought (minutes before) this Bachmann SR Atlantic. Though no doubt a mighty-fine model, I found it incongruous (taking this picture to prove my point). What about that awful front coupling? Where are the route discs? Where is the crew? What about real coal in the tender? What about weathering? And so on, and so on.

 

I was asked for my comments, and, at least, the front coupling went in response to them.

 

 

Still no 'real' coupling, nor standpipes on the front buffer beam/platform. Neither of these pictures will be submitted!

 

I respect the views of others who claim 'my' opinion counts for nothing in these matters. In their opinion, what folk wish to do is entirely up to them, even at a show where punters have paid to see their 'work'. That said, I hope they respect my 'responsibility' to only submit images of folk's work, not just purchasing-power. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

[Dr Al]

16 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

The reason why an article on the Princess Coronation I'm building from a DJH kit is no longer 'suitable' for BRM is 'It's because there's an RTR equivalent' (quote). Really? Such articles used to be regular meat and drink to the title (I know, because I wrote dozens of them).

 

Magazines are missing the point of such an article, clearly - to me it's about the techniques and craftsmanship (many of which are more broadly applicable), and less about the specific subject. That is a shame.

 

Cheers,
Alan

[RLBH]

59 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Prop shafts are a well engineered bit of kit, they would have been shipped in designed packing cases, possibly in plate or pipe type long open wagons. Not laid on the floor of a passenger coach.

I could just about conceive of it being done if the shafts were too long for a BG and they absolutely had to be moved at express passenger speeds. I don't consider either of those things likely, but strange things can happen in wartime.

 

What I suspect would be done is that the shaft, in its' packing case, would be laid down the gangway of the coach (so probably limited to one, unless seats were removed or they could be stcked), the packing case secured, and the coach locked out of use. I can't see it being a desirable way to transport them, but it may have been done occasionally if more suitable stock wasn't available.

[Dr Al]

21 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

2. Only the very best kit-/scratch-builders/painters can now achieve the same standards in OO (though their locos will usually pull much more).

 

3. In 'real' terms, current RTR locos are very good value for money, considering the standard achieved.

 

4. The market has dictated that levels of detail are at a previously unheard of level.

 

5. One of the consequences of '4' is that that detail is so fine and flimsy that it's far too vulnerable. 

 

6. Detail bits thus fall off (and disappear forever) far too easily. 

 

7. Are these current RTR locos ever designed to be taken apart with ease? 

 

8. Why are so many different screws needed to separate chassis from body, and why are they so inaccessible? 

 

9. DCC insistence dictates that tender locos (in the main) now have a plug and socket arrangement semi-permanently coupling the two units, with all the necessary gubbins in the tender body. 

 

10. Given some of the inherent flimsiness of the plastic (and metal?) components in current RTR locos, how long might we expect them to last?

 

11. The packaging is so complex (and wasteful of the Earth's resources!) that videos are need to explain how to get the locos from their 'boxes'. 

 

12 Any other observations?  

 

I'd hope enough folks are willing to accept that 2. doesn't matter and that the standard you achieve is less important than the fact you've done it yourself - and of course your standards generally improve over time with experience, and as such the important thing is to have a go and not be put off by perceived standards.

 

In terms of RTR, I often feel that the design is poor - in terms of mechanism especially given the complexity (i.e. the complete lack of complexity) of what they actually conceptually have to do - a motor, a few gears driving the wheels. It's inherently simple, yet manufacturers seem to find this relatively hard to actually do, and hard to do in ways where they are serviceable.  

 

As an N Gauge modeller, I've seen this in a lot of designs - cleaning pickups for example? On newly designed N gauge locos that now involves stripping the entire chassis down and removing all the wheels from the axles (and therefore inevitably having to take all the valve gear off) to get at the axle bearings. Most folk just can't do this, and whilst it sounds like an extreme case, it's actually proving exceptionally common that this becomes necessary.

 

A lot of the time I get the feeling that RTR manufacturers don't really get their models tested properly in many respects, and that the product testers the use need to be more diverse (if it was me I'd be stripping it down for example to see how easy it is!). I mean watching the recent James May porgramme on Hornby, the test track looked like little more that a 6'x4' loop - the most basic of basic train sets. I'm not sure that's really representative of what a lot of us *actually* run our models on.

 

Cheers,
Alan

[Tony Wright]

16 hours ago, micklner said:

     The Hornby A4 Lubricator drive is hardly a major or daft problem, how else could they have fitted the part without spending money on redesigning the chassis ? .

            Simply position the wheel to the bottom if a valanced Loco, undo the crankpin with a nut spinner and remove  the crank and replace the crankpin before its lost back onto the wheel. To then remove the body there is one screw at the front remove and lift the body off . Not exactly hard to do with the right tools. The same applies for the Gresley A1 and A3's which share the same chassis.

     The actual problem is Hornby do not highlight the simple way to remove it without causing any damage.

     The same applies to the Tender one screw only, but they don't tell you that it is under the coupling. I have seen numerous Tender Bodies wrecked where people have tried to force body off. The screw won on all of them.

 

  As LN no idea not my area , Peppercorn A1's are the wrong period for me .

Thanks for your comments, Mick,

 

I infer from what you've said in the past, you don't 'do' shows. If my inference is incorrect, I apologise. If correct, perhaps the following observations might be of (little) interest. 

 

I attend lots of shows, in part as a 'loco doctor'. I've lost count of the number of Hornby A4s brought to me with the lubricator drive hanging loose. Not at the crankpin, but at the top where the (daft) little hook arrangement has come off the piece of wire holding it in place - not whilst attempting to take the body off, I might add. It's not a question of redesigning the chassis, it should not (in my opinion) have been designed like that in the first place. In some cases, the little 'hook' has broken, and the only cure then is to remove the drive altogether.

 

There's no doubt it looks 'scale', and Hornby should be congratulated for that, but to have to separate parts of the motion to get the body off is still 'daft' in my opinion. 

 

This is Hornby's arrangement, and it looks very realistic, I have to say (we won't mention the wrong lean to the return crank this side, nor the upward slope towards the rear of the slidebars/crosshead). The poor bogie wheels have been replaced (but we've been there before). As you explain, to get the body off, that rear crankpin has to be removed (and then found again after it's made a bid for freedom!).

 

 

Here's my arrangement on a SE Finecast A4. One could argue that the Hornby one looks better, and the whole thing is more-detailed (I concede that, though my return crank leans the right way, the slidebar/crosshead leans down towards the rear, and it's much more substantial). The little 'parallelogram' at the top of the lubricator link is attached to the body, but the pivot at the top is attached to the frames (you can just see the top of it poking above the footplate, which has a hole in it, as it should). As with Hornby's, that little parallelogram does not move backwards and forwards (as it really should). 

 

'Several tender bodies wrecked'! Hardly an advertisement for good, simple design. 

 

Though Hornby's A4 body might be easy to remove from its chassis, have you tried getting the body off (easily) a Bachmann Austerity or an 80XXX? Not your period, I know.

 

I hope I'm perceived as giving praise where it's due, and there's no doubt the current range of RTR steam-outline locos is incredible with regard to realism in appearance and fidelity to prototype. However, despite your observations, individual items are much more difficult to get apart and the robustness is just not there. You're quite capable of dismantling things (and rebuilding them into fantastic creations), but the majority of RTR purchasers don't have your experience and skill. If that majority has difficulty in simply taking a body off a chassis because of 'daft' arrangements, then that can't be right, can it? Or, don't the manufacturers want their products to be taken apart? 

 

That range of highly-realistic models has made the hobby much more egalitarian (which is good), and, in your own case, has allowed you to create some very high-standard locos (I imagine your stud would be much, much smaller without the current RTR range).

 

Bachmann, of course, don't bother fitting the lubricator drive to their A4s, so it's not a problem getting the body off the chassis. However, the original split chassis (now replaced by Bachmann with a much-better one in its last A4 offerings) was a bit of a dud. 

 

 

This is a Bachmann A4 body on a SE Finecast chassis, towing a modified SE Finecast tender. The whole lot has been painted beautifully by Ian Rathbone. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited April 17, 2019 by Tony Wright
typo error

[gr.king]

Use of observation, thought, time, care and patience, not all that difficult but not necessarily seen in all buyers of RTR toy trains, makes it perfectly possible to solve the Hornby lubricator drive problem without loss of the drive and without the need to wind the crankpin in and out of the wheel every time the body needs to come off - although once the loco is customised to the owner's satisfaction how many times should the body really need to be removed if the model is used with care? All that need be done is to take a piece of stiff straight wire say 0.5mm diameter, drill a hole into the side of the chassis to take the wire as a tight fit, just where the upper pivot for the lubricator drive linkage should be, and insert the wire with about 15mm protruding straight out of the chassis side (for later trimming to length). Release the drive from its original pivot on the body and hook it onto the wire instead, with a glued or (better still) soldered washer or slice of tube either side of the end of the drive to keep it in the right place on the wire, clear of the wheels and rods on the inside, clear of the running plate angle or valance on the outside. The drive is then a permanent part of the chassis and nothing to do with the body, which is doddle to remove and refit.

Depending on the accuracy of position of the new pivot wire, it may become all the more necessary NOT to run the loco or the chassis unit upside down. You shouldn't be doing that anyway unless you want to risk having links in the forward parts of the valve gear going "over-centre" and then having the crosshead thrown out of the slidebars, but if the lubricator drive pivot is not quite in the right place the top joint in that drive linkage can also end up "wrong way up" so that when back on the track the loco runs unevenly, possibly lurching and clicking as it does so.

Edited April 17, 2019 by gr.king

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, RLBH said:

I could just about conceive of it being done if the shafts were too long for a BG and they absolutely had to be moved at express passenger speeds. I don't consider either of those things likely, but strange things can happen in wartime.

 

What I suspect would be done is that the shaft, in its' packing case, would be laid down the gangway of the coach (so probably limited to one, unless seats were removed or they could be stcked), the packing case secured, and the coach locked out of use. I can't see it being a desirable way to transport them, but it may have been done occasionally if more suitable stock wasn't available.

 

Context is everything... the book presents the anecdote in the context of a specialist engineering support unit, managing the supply of critical components to wherever they were required, whenever they were required. “LMS Passenger” are not presented as being particularly happy about the procedure, and it was only done as a last resort when Road haulage could not be arranged (remember that a 20ft load requiring to be supported over its full length, was too long most lorries of the time and required special arrangements)

 

My interpretation of the anecdote is that a detail of fitters manhandled the shaft, in its case, to the required location and travelled with it to install it, returning by train and dispatching any surplus or recovered items through “usual channels” 

 

[ScRSG]

Just a couple of questions for you knowledgeable chaps on this forum, firstly, the painted crests on the cabs of the "Commonwealth" A4s, particularly 60011. Has anyone any info. on when these were painted out (or did they last until withdrawn)?

 

Secondly, Tony, despite searching this forum and your books and videos I can't find where you have told us which paints you use for the weathering of coach underframes, please enlighten me!

 

Chas

[PMP]

2 hours ago, Dr Al said:

 

Magazines are missing the point of such an article, clearly - to me it's about the techniques and craftsmanship (many of which are more broadly applicable), and less about the specific subject. That is a shame.

 

Cheers,
Alan

 

I agree to an extent, however I can recall discussions on earlier versions of this forum where people couldn’t make that connection, between the task being demonstrated eg a steam loco repaint, and the task they wanted to do, a diesel repaint for example. There were as I recall plenty of ‘nothing in it for me’ type comments on many of the skills that some of us see and understand as naturally transferrable. I expect the mags are to a degree reflecting that ‘position’. 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, ScRSG said:

Just a couple of questions for you knowledgeable chaps on this forum, firstly, the painted crests on the cabs of the "Commonwealth" A4s, particularly 60011. Has anyone any info. on when these were painted out (or did they last until withdrawn)?

 

Secondly, Tony, despite searching this forum and your books and videos I can't find where you have told us which paints you use for the weathering of coach underframes, please enlighten me!

 

Chas

Good afternoon Chas,

 

Certainly 60009, 60010 and 60013 had lost their coats of arms by later BR days (maybe early in 60010's case). It would seem that 60011 and 60012 kept theirs until (or near to) withdrawal. 

 

Paints for weathering? Always enamels ( I can't get on with brushing-acrylics, unless it's for scenery). I use a mixture of Humbrol's matt black, dark grey, 'leather' and matt white, all dry-brushed on. 

 

I hope this helps,

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

I wonder if any 'collector' out there might be able to help, please...............

 

I chap along the road is moving, and he's brought me a box of model railway stuff which has languished in his loft for over 20 years. 

 

There are three locos. I've cleaned and oiled them and they now work very well.

 

They are.........

 

A Triang/Hornby 'Dock Authority' four-wheeled diesel in black. This is as near 'mint' boxed as I've seen.

 

A Hornby-Dublo R1 0-6-0T in green. Battered a bit.

 

A Playcraft NB Type 2 diesel, 61XX. In excellent condition, but no box. 

 

Does anyone know what these might be worth? Not much? 

 

There are also wagons, signals, bits and pieces and what have you, all in 'iffy' condition, probably worth no more than a couple of quid each.

 

There's some Hornby track, but it's rusting away.

 

Many thanks in anticipation. 

[Arun Sharma]

23 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

The reason why an article on the Princess Coronation I'm building from a DJH kit is no longer 'suitable' for BRM is 'It's because there's an RTR equivalent' (quote). Really? Such articles used to be regular meat and drink to the title (I know, because I wrote dozens of them). Things always change, and, if the mag' (and others) appeals to a wider audience, then that can only be to the good. However, I'm still going to write the article (I'm writing it) because it might find a home elsewhere. Who knows?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

At the risk of being barred from RMWEB, I have to say that BRM's attitude in that respect is grotesque.  

May I suggest that you should send the eventual article and the letter from BRM to MRJ for them to publish both side by side.

[davidw]

58 minutes ago, Arun Sharma said:

At the risk of being barred from RMWEB, I have to say that BRM's attitude in that respect is grotesque.  

May I suggest that you should send the eventual article and the letter from BRM to MRJ for them to publish both side by side.

I agree. I've hunted down kit building articles via back issues.

[Tony Wright]

58 minutes ago, Arun Sharma said:

At the risk of being barred from RMWEB, I have to say that BRM's attitude in that respect is grotesque.  

May I suggest that you should send the eventual article and the letter from BRM to MRJ for them to publish both side by side.

I don't think the attitude of BRM is 'grotesque', Arun; perhaps just pragmatic.

 

The statement wasn't issued with any malice, just a matter of fact observation. It wasn't in the form of a letter, it was face-to-face. I certainly wasn't 'upset' by it, though I was slightly puzzled.

 

It's not for me to say any more, anyway, and, if the magazine (any magazine) sees an article on building a large and complex locomotive no longer for its readership, then so be it. Though it might be the observations of a reactionary old git (lots of 'agrees' here), I'm convinced that the popular press has gone towards less-complex, easy-to-do, aimed at the inexperienced and fewer long-term projects in more recent years. If this approach produces a more successful (from a commercial point of view) series of model railway magazines, then it's one worth pursuing. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[micklner]

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks for your comments, Mick,

 

I infer from what you've said in the past, you don't 'do' shows. If my inference is incorrect, I apologise. If correct, perhaps the following observations might be of (little) interest. 

 

I attend lots of shows, in part as a 'loco doctor'. I've lost count of the number of Hornby A4s brought to me with the lubricator drive hanging loose. Not at the crankpin, but at the top where the (daft) little hook arrangement has come off the piece of wire holding it in place - not whilst attempting to take the body off, I might add. It's not a question of redesigning the chassis, it should not (in my opinion) have been designed like that in the first place. In some cases, the little 'hook' has broken, and the only cure then is to remove the drive altogether.

 

There's no doubt it looks 'scale', and Hornby should be congratulated for that, but to have to separate parts of the motion to get the body off is still 'daft' in my opinion. 

 

This is Hornby's arrangement, and it looks very realistic, I have to say (we won't mention the wrong lean to the return crank this side, nor the upward slope towards the rear of the slidebars/crosshead). The poor bogie wheels have been replaced (but we've been there before). As you explain, to get the body off, that rear crankpin has to be removed (and then found again after it's made a bid for freedom!).

 

 

Here's my arrangement on a SE Finecast A4. One could argue that the Hornby one looks better, and the whole thing is more-detailed (I concede that, though my return crank leans the right way, the slidebar/crosshead leans down towards the rear, and it's much more substantial). The little 'parallelogram' at the top of the lubricator link is attached to the body, but the pivot at the top is attached to the frames (you can just see the top of it poking above the footplate, which has a hole in it, as it should). As with Hornby's, that little parallelogram does not move backwards and forwards (as it really should). 

 

'Several tender bodies wrecked'! Hardly an advertisement for good, simple design. 

 

Though Hornby's A4 body might be easy to remove from its chassis, have you tried getting the body off (easily) a Bachmann Austerity or an 80XXX? Not your period, I know.

 

I hope I'm perceived as giving praise where it's due, and there's no doubt the current range of RTR steam-outline locos is incredible with regard to realism in appearance and fidelity to prototype. However, despite your observations, individual items are much more difficult to get apart and the robustness is just not there. You're quite capable of dismantling things (and rebuilding them into fantastic creations), but the majority of RTR purchasers don't have your experience and skill. If that majority has difficulty in simply taking a body off a chassis because of 'daft' arrangements, then that can't be right, can it? Or, don't the manufacturers want their products to be taken apart? 

 

That range of highly-realistic models has made the hobby much more egalitarian (which is good), and, in your own case, has allowed you to create some very high-standard locos (I imagine your stud would be much, much smaller without the current RTR range).

 

Bachmann, of course, don't bother fitting the lubricator drive to their A4s, so it's not a problem getting the body off the chassis. However, the original split chassis (now replaced by Bachmann with a much-better one in its last A4 offerings) was a bit of a dud. 

 

 

This is a Bachmann A4 body on a SE Finecast chassis, towing a modified SE Finecast tender. The whole lot has been painted beautifully by Ian Rathbone. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thanks Tony for the reply.

Yes correct shows normally aren't my cup of tea. Living on the east side  of London there aren't that many anyway (and zero model shops) that I would actually consider attending simply due to time and costs involved.

 

My main point was that for Hornby to make a new chassis for the oil drive on the A4 only  would no doubt been silly money , they probably thought they would never recoup the costs involved, perhaps Mr Kohler might know the thinking behind the design ?. On reading Grames suggestion what a excellent idea to solve the problem. 

 

As to Hook design Hornby should never have made it from thin plastic a obvious failure part , it should have a etched part. I have come across two versions the Hook version and one shaped like a dog bone with holes at each end, it is just as weak and impossible to either remove other than by forcing the mounting wire out of the body, or if broken a new part is the only fix as impossible to repair and again removing the mounting wire.

 

As to Tenders the saying " fools rush in" without finding out how it put together covers it nicely !!

 

As to my efforts I have been making models for 40 plus years and its all experience on what can be a very frustrating hobby at times, even now !!

 

cheers

 

Mick

 

 

[Headstock]

19 hours ago, Clem said:

They look very good together, Andrew. May I ask, are they both from Comet kits? The new crimson BT5 looks spot on and you've certainly perfected a method for that steel panelled mock teak effect. I hope to get on to some carriage building before too long, but I've got several layout projects to complete first. But when I do get around to carriage building again, I'd be extremely happy to get anywhere remotely approaching that standard! I've said it one to two times butI love this thread. It's very inspiring.

 

 

Evening Clem,

 

thanks for he comments. The two carriages are brass sided Hornby, the BT being Bill Bedford and the CL comet. They are a bit of a side line from the main event, the dia 210 twin and five Gresley corridor carriages are currently going through the paint shop.

 

I only tend to use the Comet sides and floor pan for Thompson carriages. The Comet roof is a generic one, not the right profile for a Thompson. The ends are also unsuitable as they too  have the wrong profile. I also like to standardise on as many components as possible, such as battery boxes etc. The MJT components are much better than the Comet ones, so I wouldn't build a full Comet kit for either Thompson or Gresley stock.

Incidentally, these little three sets worked to Grantham and return, though the BT 5, seems to have been replaced by BT 4's in your time period.