Wright writes.....

[Clem]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

The question is frequently asked as to whether Hornby will ever revisit the Gresley range. I think that's highly unlikely (though I certainly don't know), but looking at the firm's more recent offerings for the other Big Four companies (which are generally excellent; as are the non-gangwayed Hornby Gresleys), then it would be great if they would. Not great for the kit-makers (who continue to provide what's required), but great for those who can't build these beautiful examples of wooden-bodied rolling stock. That said, from what I've seen in the media and at shows of late, many are happy to use the Hornby Gresleys as they are. That being the case, why should Hornby invest money in expensive new tooling? 

In one way it's good that they botched the job on the Gresley gangwayed carriages. It leaves us feeling like we can really improve them by putting in replacement sides or as I've done with one, attempt to correct both the shape and beading on the original sides. Also, it serves to give those of us (like me) that need a kick up the backside to attempt some real modelling to both improve them and encourage us to expand the variety and diversity to our stock. Sometimes, the silver lining far outweighs the initial black cloud.

[Lecorbusier]

I have a basic question relating to my Craftsman 1F build, which hopefully someone can give a little guidance with.

 

What is the best/most simple method to solder up the seam on the rolled brass boiler? To date I have only used brass tube or white metal so this will be a first. Specifically is there a simple way to ensure the seam lies flat (rather than slightly ridged) whilst the boiler remains round ..... also is there a simple way to hold it in place whilst working? Finally, does one strengthen the seam as a matter of course or will the solder joint be fine as is?

 

Thanks

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, jwealleans said:

Morning Clive,

 

Is this going to be the D45 BG, the one with no trussing, or the D198?  I'm guessing the later one as it had vents at the top of the doors where the D45 had droplights.

 

Mike Trice posted a good photo of a D198 on my workbench thread.

 

You're right about BGs, by the way, they were 6" narrower than passenger carrying vehicles.  As were the guards sections of carriages, which is why they had that distinctive step in.  Does anyone know why that originated, btw?

Hi Jonathan

 

It is going to be a D198. I could be doing with all those handrails on a D45. Plus the D198 lasted longer so are correct for my modelling period.

[Headstock]

On 24/09/2019 at 22:42, Clem said:

Having made the skeleton, what do you use to 'skin' it? 10 thou plasticard?

 

Morning Clem,

 

20 thou in the past, for this one a double laminate of ten thou.

 

14 hours ago, APOLLO said:

 

Nice photo - I like the Tri-ang Brake Van !!

 

 

Brit15

 

 

 

M73031 and 20 tons, no way. I'm suprised Hornby are not trying to flog it.

 

8 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I have been experimenting with different approaches to making coaches. I have had a few problems, I wasn't happy with the CCT(E) sides when I first bent it and made the turnunder, so a re-read of Mr Kent's article in MRJ and I put a backing piece behind and that sorted it. I also had problems with the roof. I was going make it of strips of 20 thou plastic card over formers.... it dipped between the formers so I built it up using Gerald Scarborough's laminated method to get complicated shapes as I have done with the steel body BG. I remain a little unhappy with the dome ends of the BG. When compared to a Kirk kit it is nearly there, and also with one of my cut and shut Hornby "shortie". It is when comparing it with a Hornby BG they do not match. The Hornby BG is a real fatty, BGs should be narrower than other coaches, I hadn't noticed it before.

 

I built one of the BGs bogies wrong but that has been corrected. The other one I seem to have made the side frames too narrow and it shows with the big gap between it and the solbar.

Steel body BG. There is still a lot of filler to be applied before any other work.

 

The Anglo-Scottish Car Carrier CCT(E). There were three batches of CCTs and one of PMVs. One batch of CCTs were rebuilt from ex GER  Ilford stock displaced by the Shenfield electrification, as were the PMVs. The model is going to be from the second batch again converted from Ilford stock but these were LNER built coaches to 54ft long and had secondhand Fox bogies. The last batch were made from standard 51ft CLs and only had two doors on the side. 

 

 

 

stunning modeling there Clive but hold your horses. The kirk roof end profile is complete fantasy and looks nothing like a real Gresley carriage, what you are doing is much closer to reality. Best to consign the kirk to the history books.

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, jwealleans said:

Morning Clive,

 

Is this going to be the D45 BG, the one with no trussing, or the D198?  I'm guessing the later one as it had vents at the top of the doors where the D45 had droplights.

 

Mike Trice posted a good photo of a D198 on my workbench thread.

 

You're right about BGs, by the way, they were 6" narrower than passenger carrying vehicles.  As were the guards sections of carriages, which is why they had that distinctive step in.  Does anyone know why that originated, btw?

 

Morning  Jonathan,

 

the larger guards ducket as compared to GN stock. Initially (pre ducket), the Guard was expected to just stick his head out.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Headstock

[jwealleans]

I've had that theory expressed to me before, Andrew, but it does beg the question of how the other railways managed.  Only the SECR (I think) and then the LNER under Gresley seem to have taken this route.  Am I not right in thinking that even vehicles without duckets still had the step, although I suppose that could have been down to the jigs in the various carriage works.

 

As an aside, a friend who regularly worked as a guard on the NYMR teak set said that they never used the ducket anyway, only the window.

[thegreenhowards]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

 

With regard to Hornby's current gangwayed Gresleys, speaking with Gilbert Barnatt yesterday we both agreed what a huge disappointment they are. Incorrect body shape, beading in the wrong places on some and what an opportunity missed? He doesn't use them and I certainly don't (other than as donors), yet, had they been right at source (or even near right), they would have formed the backbone of our respective Gresley fleets. Instead, it's been conversion/kit-building for me and quite an expense for him in the form of beautiful Willetts/Studley cars. 

 

The question is frequently asked as to whether Hornby will ever revisit the Gresley range. I think that's highly unlikely (though I certainly don't know), but looking at the firm's more recent offerings for the other Big Four companies (which are generally excellent; as are the non-gangwayed Hornby Gresleys), then it would be great if they would. Not great for the kit-makers (who continue to provide what's required), but great for those who can't build these beautiful examples of wooden-bodied rolling stock. That said, from what I've seen in the media and at shows of late, many are happy to use the Hornby Gresleys as they are. That being the case, why should Hornby invest money in expensive new tooling? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony,

 

I'm nervous about typing this reply because I suspect it will be met by a barrage of dissent, but I feel that someone needs to stick up for Hornby.

 

I really don't understand the huge fuss made about the Hornby Gresleys. I think they're pretty good coaches – better than many professional builders can manage. As I understand it, they have two principle weaknesses – the tumblehome is underdone and there is the odd bit of beading missing / in the wrong place. I believe that the tumblehome differed significantly on the prototype and Hornby’s is still there even if a little insufficient. In the middle of a rake of coaches it really doesn’t notice, although it might stand out more on the rear coach. As for the missing beading, that’s not difficult to add in with plastic strip for the modellers on this thread if it really bothers them. Perhaps there are more issues. If so, could someone explain? But if not, they really don’t seem too bad.

 

To set against the points above the ends, underframe and roof are exquisite and far ahead of most kit built coaches, the lining is very fine and in the right place – better than I can manage with decals and the finish is superb.

 

Gilbert’s coaches look lovely, but as has been pointed out they’re missing bogie footboards, which to me is a far greater sin than a small strip of beading and one of them has a scratch on the side (picture 2). Obviously, this can happen to any coach but I think brass coaches are particularly susceptible…and it’s easier to touch up a plastic coach. I haven’t examined them closely but the underframe doesn’t look as detailed as Hornby’s.

 

As for Hornby revisiting the range, I’m in two minds. The reel joy of modelling (ex)LNER is the huge range of different Gresley coach diagrams. Researching and building the correct vehicles for a train can be very rewarding. Hornby are never going to cover that diversity (good, I think we’d both say), but it would be nice of they did a few more staples (end vestibule stock and catering cars spring to mind). I’d rather they broadened the range than reworking the tooling for the coaches they have already produced. But the continual sniping at what they have produced can’t encourage them.

 

On the subject of diversity of range, I was pleased to chat to Andy from Isinglass at the Woking show. His new venture into printing Gresley body kits looks a great way of extending the range. For those who don’t know, he can print any vehicle for which he has the drawings (and a few others if you can provide some data). I’ve ordered a couple of 66ft sleeper bodies from him and look forward to completing my ‘Night Scotsman’.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

P.S. If you’re reading this Gilbert, sorry to use your coaches as an example, but they have been quoted a few times recently. They are great looking and I’m sure the all metal ‘presence’ creates quite an impact on the layout. I know from bitter experience how difficult it is to get a kit built coach perfect in every respect, so no criticism is intended.

 

[Chamby]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

That said, from what I've seen in the media and at shows of late, many are happy to use the Hornby Gresleys as they are. That being the case, why should Hornby invest money in expensive new tooling? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I have a couple of rakes of the Hornby Gresley coaches on my layout, so that makes me one of ‘the many’.  

 

Why?  

 

Although I am aware of their inadequacies, they still are the best way to get a ‘reasonable representation’ of Gresley coaches up and running quickly.  They are a far better compromise than not having any Gresley stock at all on a model railway featuring the LNER or BR(E).  From a normal layout viewing distance, especially when running by, everyone accepts that they are, to all intents and purposes, a rake of gresley teaks.  So ‘layout coaches’ then.

 

In my case, this is intended as an interim measure, though it is likely to be some time before I get around to replacing them because I am still in the early stages of my retirement project and there are many more pressing things to get done first, that will have a bigger impact on the overall scheme.  One can only do so much at a time... this is a long term project and we all have a list of things that we will get around to in due course, that can seem overwhelming at times.  Hopefully before age catches up with us... though I sometimes feel that my latent perfectionist streak is a curse rather than a blessing!

 

Interestingly, the Hornby coaches still draw positive comments from folk.  The vast majority of model railway enthusiasts, even many modelling the LNER (though rather less accurately than those dwelling on this thread), are still blissfully ignorant of Hornby’s shortcomings on this product.  

 

So I would rather run them, warts and all, than have nothing... for now at least.  

[Clive Mortimore]

The LMS also built its BGs and BGZs to a narrower width. The Horny Magazine (Dapol) Stove R is the same width as the Dapol coaches.

[jwealleans]

Were their brake passenger vehicles narrower when fitted with a ducket, though, Clive?

[Clem]

48 minutes ago, Headstock said:

20 thou in the past, for this one a double laminate of ten thou.

Cheers Andrew. It's something I'll be doing in the future to get that diversity you need for 1950s modelling of the GN in Notts.

 

52 minutes ago, Headstock said:

The kirk roof end profile is complete fantasy and looks nothing like a real Gresley carriage, what you are doing is much closer to reality.

Completely agree. Have used MJT roofs with my kirk gangway carriages. The shape you've achieved Clive, is pretty well spot on in my opinion. 

[Clive Mortimore]

7 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

Were their brake passenger vehicles narrower when fitted with a ducket, though, Clive?

No the duckets on the passenger brake vehicles were within the loading gauge and at the same time keeping the coach body the same width. Some brake seconds (thirds) didn't have duckets so they could work over some SR lines. They may have built the BGs slightly narrower so that they could travel over some lines with a width restriction.

 

 

[jamie92208]

On 26/09/2019 at 09:01, Lecorbusier said:

I have a basic question relating to my Craftsman 1F build, which hopefully someone can give a little guidance with.

 

What is the best/most simple method to solder up the seam on the rolled brass boiler? To date I have only used brass tube or white metal so this will be a first. Specifically is there a simple way to ensure the seam lies flat (rather than slightly ridged) whilst the boiler remains round ..... also is there a simple way to hold it in place whilst working? Finally, does one strengthen the seam as a matter of course or will the solder joint be fine as is?

 

Thanks

There are two ways that I know of holding a tube for soldering.  The first is jubilee clips and the other is florists wire twisted round. The last one I did I put a length of brass strip inside the joint, soldered it to one side then found some half inch dowel that can be put in a vice. Then covered the strip in solder and flux, tightened everything up then put the boiler over the dowel and soldered it up using somehing to press the seam down as I went along.

 

Hope it works out.

 

Jamie

 

 

Edited January 19, 2020 by jamie92208

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, jwealleans said:

I've had that theory expressed to me before, Andrew, but it does beg the question of how the other railways managed.  Only the SECR (I think) and then the LNER under Gresley seem to have taken this route.  Am I not right in thinking that even vehicles without duckets still had the step, although I suppose that could have been down to the jigs in the various carriage works.

 

As an aside, a friend who regularly worked as a guard on the NYMR teak set said that they never used the ducket anyway, only the window.

 

Morning Jonathan,

 

What the other railways did is not really relevant to what the LNER thought was the right way to do things. However, it was also standard practice on the Southern (depending on carriage restriction) who also like the LNER adopted Pullman gangways. The other two big four companies did their own thing.

 

One thing to remember is that passenger and non passenger carriages started off narrower and gradually got wider. In the case of the former, to provide greater passenger comfort. A requirement that was thought of as unnecessary on a bogie van or van compartment. Fairly standard LNER thinking, expensive bogies for passenger comfort and cheaper bogies for lugging around parcels, wider, narrower etc. The LNER were experts at a kind of 'doublethink'.

 

On the case of duckets, they are all general a bit rubbish, especially as carriages got wider. BR adopted periscopes as standard, I think that the LM were tinkering with these. There is no doubt in my mind that the LNER retained (as opposed to deliberately recessed) the narrower passenger vans and van compartments so that the Guard had more space to stick his neck out. I wonder if that is the originator of the phrase, or dose it go back to Guillotine.

[Headstock]

Talking about Duckets, a poor link.

 

There are far two many problems and mistakes with the Hornby Gresleys beyond those mentioned. I can only assume that people are unaware of them. Anyway, its far far more fun to build your own, as Andy and Clive have consistently shown. Finally I got some picks of my d 210 twin, I have another to build. Like the GC BT 7, it will be running for the first time at the end of October, although the twin and GC carriage will be in different ordinary passenger trains. Should the break end windows have bars?

 

 

 

 

[thegreenhowards]

8 minutes ago, Headstock said:

Talking about Duckets, a poor link.

 

There are far two many problems and mistakes with the Hornby Gresleys beyond those mentioned. I can only assume that people are unaware of them. Anyway, its far far more fun to build your own, as Andy and Clive have consistently shown. Finally I got some picks of my d 210 twin, I have another to build. Like the GC BT 7, it will be running for the first time at the end of October, although the twin and GC carriage will be in different ordinary passenger trains. Should the break end windows have bars?

 

 

 

 

Looking great Andrew, your teak is so natural looking. 

 

I agree its more fun to build your own. It's just that I fell one needs a leg up from the RTR boys in order to populate a layout the size of mine (or LSGC). And before anyone suggests it, a BLT wouldn't satisfy me. I like big engines on long trains.

 

Can anyone spill the beans on what else is wrong with the Hornby Gresleys?

 

Andy

 

 

[Bucoops]

27 minutes ago, Headstock said:

Talking about Duckets, a poor link.

 

There are far two many problems and mistakes with the Hornby Gresleys beyond those mentioned. I can only assume that people are unaware of them. Anyway, its far far more fun to build your own, as Andy and Clive have consistently shown. Finally I got some picks of my d 210 twin, I have another to build. Like the GC BT 7, it will be running for the first time at the end of October, although the twin and GC carriage will be in different ordinary passenger trains. Should the break end windows have bars?

 

 

 

 

 

I'm mine come out half as good as these I'll be extremely happy. Amazing work.

[t-b-g]

If you want a lot of Gresley carriages quickly, the Hornby ones are hugely better than the ones you haven't got!

 

Most modellers can't knock a carriage kit out in an afternoon. Kits are expensive and to build and paint them to make them as good as a Hornby one (even with their faults) is not easy and takes a lot of time.

 

So as  "layout carriages" the Hornby ones are passable in the eyes of many, especially if they are not in a mixed rate with better shaped vehicles. There were even a couple on Retford, hidden away in the middle of rakes of Mk1s or Thompson/Netwton types. 99% of people never picked them out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Headstock]

14 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Looking great Andrew, your teak is so natural looking. 

 

I agree its more fun to build your own. It's just that I fell one needs a leg up from the RTR boys in order to populate a layout the size of mine (or LSGC). And before anyone suggests it, a BLT wouldn't satisfy me. I like big engines on long trains.

 

Can anyone spill the beans on what else is wrong with the Hornby Gresleys?

 

Andy

 

 

 

Andy,

 

I like to borrow from the LMS with their scrap and build policy. So I will get something up and running and tweak it and eventually replace it with new builds. Personal, I don't give a fig how many Hornby Gresleys or Bachmann MK1's that you may have. They are not what makes your trains so exciting to look at.

[thegreenhowards]

11 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Andy,

 

I like to borrow from the LMS with their scrap and build policy. So I will get something up and running and tweak it and eventually replace it with new builds. Personal, I don't give a fig how many Hornby Gresleys or Bachmann MK1's that you may have. They are not what makes your trains so exciting to look at.

I sort of agree. Although, I operate more of a cascade and build policy as I can’t bear to throw things away. However the RTRs form a kind of ‘frame’ for the more interesting stuff. For example take the 1410 KX-York/Hull that I’ve finished recently. Here is the full train which, I hope, looks pretty good.

 

However, it only has four kit built coaches, so without the RTR ‘frame’ it would look pretty puny!

 

Projects like this I regard as building the whole train from a selection of parts, some RTR, some kit built. The research of the formation and sourcing/ improving of the RTR elements is part of the project.

[Clem]

37 minutes ago, Headstock said:

I like to borrow from the LMS with their scrap and build policy. So I will get something up and running and tweak it and eventually replace it with new builds. Personal, I don't give a fig how many Hornby Gresleys or Bachmann MK1's that you may have. They are not what makes your trains so exciting to look at.

Yep my philosophy too. I have to say Andrew, that D210 set looks sublime! I could look at it all day! (But I've got stuff to do, so I won't). Beautiful finishing on a beautifully built model if I may say so. As far as the bars on the end windows, the following is the only clear photo I have  of the end windows and this would suggest that there isn't (certainly in LNER days, anyway).

 

[St Enodoc]

On my layout I have a Bachmann 63' BG and a Hornby 61' BG. I've been told they are both all wrong but to be honest that doesn't bother me at all.

 

Nevertheless, they (and all my other RTR and kit built stock) run very nicely over my hand-built points, thank you.

 

Will I have to stand in the corridor for the rest of the lesson?????

Edited September 26, 2019 by St Enodoc

[Headstock]

56 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

I sort of agree. Although, I operate more of a cascade and build policy as I can’t bear to throw things away. However the RTRs form a kind of ‘frame’ for the more interesting stuff. For example take the 1410 KX-York/Hull that I’ve finished recently. Here is the full train which, I hope, looks pretty good.

 

However, it only has four kit built coaches, so without the RTR ‘frame’ it would look pretty puny!

 

Projects like this I regard as building the whole train from a selection of parts, some RTR, some kit built. The research of the formation and sourcing/ improving of the RTR elements is part of the project.

 

Your own work is always going to draw me in but it all Looks good to me Andy.

 

P.S. I don't literaly scrap em, mostly.

 

31 minutes ago, Clem said:

Yep my philosophy too. I have to say Andrew, that D210 set looks sublime! I could look at it all day! (But I've got stuff to do, so I won't). Beautiful finishing on a beautifully built model if I may say so. As far as the bars on the end windows, the following is the only clear photo I have  of the end windows and this would suggest that there isn't (certainly in LNER days, anyway).

 

 

Thanks Clem,

 

it's those ex GC carriages, they have window bars all over the place.

 

I was looking at the CWN's for your neck of the woods for the mid 50's. There are some really nice trains, the d 210's were still operating as pairs and there was some really nice 51'11/2''  third class twins, I think steel, running in pairs with a CL in the middle. Also some variations on three sets and I think a long distance gangway set. I just need to untangle the workings and I should be able to provide some pointers and options.

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, Lecorbusier said:

I have a basic question relating to my Craftsman 1F build, which hopefully someone can give a little guidance with.

 

What is the best/most simple method to solder up the seam on the rolled brass boiler? To date I have only used brass tube or white metal so this will be a first. Specifically is there a simple way to ensure the seam lies flat (rather than slightly ridged) whilst the boiler remains round ..... also is there a simple way to hold it in place whilst working? Finally, does one strengthen the seam as a matter of course or will the solder joint be fine as is?

 

Thanks

Good afternoon Tim,

 

What I do when soldering up a hard metal, sheet boiler is to use some soft iron wire (florists' wire) to hold it in place for soldering. One just twists the wire until the right diameter is achieved, then run a fillet of solder along the (bottom) seam. Being iron, the wire won't solder with ease. For extra strength, a strip of brass can be soldered along the inside of the seam. Don't worry if the seam doesn't result in a true-round boiler at the bottom. It can't be seen when the loco is completed.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited September 26, 2019 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Tony,

 

I'm nervous about typing this reply because I suspect it will be met by a barrage of dissent, but I feel that someone needs to stick up for Hornby.

 

I really don't understand the huge fuss made about the Hornby Gresleys. I think they're pretty good coaches – better than many professional builders can manage. As I understand it, they have two principle weaknesses – the tumblehome is underdone and there is the odd bit of beading missing / in the wrong place. I believe that the tumblehome differed significantly on the prototype and Hornby’s is still there even if a little insufficient. In the middle of a rake of coaches it really doesn’t notice, although it might stand out more on the rear coach. As for the missing beading, that’s not difficult to add in with plastic strip for the modellers on this thread if it really bothers them. Perhaps there are more issues. If so, could someone explain? But if not, they really don’t seem too bad.

 

To set against the points above the ends, underframe and roof are exquisite and far ahead of most kit built coaches, the lining is very fine and in the right place – better than I can manage with decals and the finish is superb.

 

Gilbert’s coaches look lovely, but as has been pointed out they’re missing bogie footboards, which to me is a far greater sin than a small strip of beading and one of them has a scratch on the side (picture 2). Obviously, this can happen to any coach but I think brass coaches are particularly susceptible…and it’s easier to touch up a plastic coach. I haven’t examined them closely but the underframe doesn’t look as detailed as Hornby’s.

 

As for Hornby revisiting the range, I’m in two minds. The reel joy of modelling (ex)LNER is the huge range of different Gresley coach diagrams. Researching and building the correct vehicles for a train can be very rewarding. Hornby are never going to cover that diversity (good, I think we’d both say), but it would be nice of they did a few more staples (end vestibule stock and catering cars spring to mind). I’d rather they broadened the range than reworking the tooling for the coaches they have already produced. But the continual sniping at what they have produced can’t encourage them.

 

On the subject of diversity of range, I was pleased to chat to Andy from Isinglass at the Woking show. His new venture into printing Gresley body kits looks a great way of extending the range. For those who don’t know, he can print any vehicle for which he has the drawings (and a few others if you can provide some data). I’ve ordered a couple of 66ft sleeper bodies from him and look forward to completing my ‘Night Scotsman’.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

P.S. If you’re reading this Gilbert, sorry to use your coaches as an example, but they have been quoted a few times recently. They are great looking and I’m sure the all metal ‘presence’ creates quite an impact on the layout. I know from bitter experience how difficult it is to get a kit built coach perfect in every respect, so no criticism is intended.

 

Why should your response be met with a 'barrage of dissent' Andy?

 

From what's been subsequently posted, it's quite the opposite. 

 

I can't personally 'live' with the Hornby gangwayed Gresleys (though they look better in teak). The body-side shape on the real things is so distinctive, yet Hornby's look very flat-sided - rather like a post-War GWR carriage's body-side form. 

 

As Clem has pointed out, it's an incentive for some 'real' modelling, especially as the Hornby cars look 'awful' if assembled in a rake of correctly-profiled Gresley carriages. 

 

I'm not too sure about the underframe being 'exquisite', either. Because of the incorrect tumbleholme, it's far too wide. That's immediately evident when using the basic models as donors. At least a mil and a bit needs taking off behind the solebars each side! Hard work with a razor saw, and very messy, but worth it for the huge improvement. 

 

As for sticking up for Hornby, I hope that's what I try to do. If I didn't, why would I have been helping them in the development of new models? If I praise a new Hornby model in print (as I recently did with the latest - and very good - Bulleid SR gangwayed stock), it would have no relevance if I didn't point out the (principal) faults when they occur in the same firm's gangwayed Gresleys. 

 

I've shown the following pictures before, though they do illustrate what I'm getting at. 

 

Shape-wise, as supplied, with just a touch of weathering/detailing. So slab-sided, though, and 'central' lower beading too high up. 

 

 

Larry Goddard did this conversion for Gilbert Barnatt using MJT sides. Note the difference in the tumbleholme. 

 

 

I did much the same thing. The difference in the tumbleholme shape is very apparent. The end profile on the one on the right looks nothing like a real Gresley carriage. 

 

 

Of course, even if Hornby's Gresleys were 'right', the range would still be limited, so this TSO using a Hornby donor is a way to expand the range. And get the body-side shape correct at the same time!

 

It's been shown that the current Hornby Gresleys suit a large number of people as they are, though 'better than nothing' (or words to that effect) is hardly a compliment. I'm afraid they don't suit me as they are, even as 'layout carriages'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited September 26, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point