Wright writes.....

[PMP]

30 minutes ago, Jamiel said:

I had assumed that you use two concertinas for each connection, but one going across the full gap makes much more sense. I will watch out for it snagging. I agree that gaps between coaches are unsightly, even if the gaps have to be widened for the curve radii.  

I will also keep an eye out for how the wires perform, they are single strand, but connected to muti-strand with plenty of play just inside the body of the end units.

 

Jamie

I originally planned one bellow/s for my 108, once fitted it didn’t really look right so I fitted the opposing set and it looks much better, (detail here https://albionyard.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/108-connections/ ).

I use Dinghams as my couplings on this set, the bellows means the unit moves ‘as one’ too. I’m currently working on a 67-80 era DMU layout so am currently looking at upgrades on the RTR DMU’s. Masokits also do various types of bellows sets but they are a little more complex in assembly.

 

Edited April 13, 2020 by PMP

[MJI]

1 hour ago, robertcwp said:

That is true of 2e stock which required at least 800v train supply. Deltics and 47 401-20 were banned from hauling them. However, the Eastern had a substantial allocation of Mark 2f stock from around 1973/4 (over 80 of them) and some trains were specified in the carriage workings as having Mark 2f open firsts. Mixed 2d/f sets were common in the mid-1970s, I remember a 1975 family trip to Scotland in a 2f TSO. Most of the others were 2d. Several 2f BSOs were transferred from the LMR shortly after introduction too.

 

E6150 is just visible in this shot:

55008_Doncaster_unscheduled-stop-down-FS_10-4-76 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

Third carriage in this one is a 2f FO:

55007_York_Apr-77 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

This is a poor quality image but the first three are 2f TSOs:

55003_ChalonersWhin_0745-KX-Edb_20-4-76 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

At least the first four are 2f TSOs in this set:

55006_StNeots_4-9-76 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

All shallow door windows on this BSO so probably a 2f:

55015_Unknown by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

 

Thanks for that Robert. Weird I had never noticed, I will have to check my books closer.

 

I was trying to be more general than detailed, as I have seen WR 2D TSO FO FK and BFK.

 

I have half of all WR 2D BFKs on the way, one complete, one in assembly. Not enough vehicles to do the other pair. I even once saw all 4 in one day at Plymouth or Exeter was 28th November 1981, so I think you could guess the unusual loco I saw on a rake of ER Mark 1s.

 

Most Western Region aircon TSOs were E, my two typical sets will have between them

 

TSOT 2D x 1

TSO 2D x 1, 2E x 8, 2F x 1

 

My ER set has 5 x 2D

 

I have seen a few rakes of Eastern Region aircons south of Birmingham on NESW services, all were 2D, one made me laugh as it contained E5690.

 

Airfix plastic is also among the best glueing RTR plastic I have used, my first BFK was solid without reinforcement, whereas I have had 2 Lima cut and shuts split, a 2C BSO and a 117 DMS. The first luckily before painting.

[MJI]

43 minutes ago, Jamiel said:

Thank you Tony, PMP, Theakerr, Tony Teague and RobertCWP.

 

Your replies are very helpful indeed. The concertinas I are ones I have cut from light black card/heavy paper – depending on you grams/meter squared definitions.

 

Here is a template I drew up in Photoshop. If it works, then it might be of some use, but hold on for the moment as my layout is not running at the moment.

 

I had assumed that you use two concertinas for each connection, but one going across the full gap makes much more sense. I will watch out for it snagging. I agree that gaps between coaches are unsightly, even if the gaps have to be widened for the curve radii.  

I will also keep an eye out for how the wires perform, they are single strand, but connected to muti-strand with plenty of play just inside the body of the end units.

 

Lovely to see the original Craftsman build, much more generous curtains than my measly ones. I did have fun scratch building the underframe from brass, offcuts, spares and a few resin castings I made. It does follow the look of the prototype, but looking at the most recent Bachmann DMU’s the underframe detail is quite amazing. I agree with Tony that, when you have built something it is your own, and I feel that.

 

As PMP says, it only takes a self-build to make sure a RTR ones comes along soon, and I am sure that someone announced a N gauge Class 120 (Dapol?) recently, and as I have seen with a lot of stock once the CADs are done for one gauge, the others often follow, so I suspect you wish will come pretty soon. Bachmann’s LMS Inspection salon was one example.

 

I am by no means a prolific builder, but over the last few years I have made:

Class 128 DMU parcels unit – Heljan 2 years later. My first conversion, Heljan’s is far better, but I still like mine, I might revisit it one day as it was a first step.

LMS inspection saloon – Bachmann beat me to getting that built. My first brass build, and I really like mine, although it still needs a tiny bit of finishing.

Class 21 diesel – Dapol 1 year later. Dapol’s is lovely, blows mine away.

Bulleid Diesel – Kernow 2 years later. Their bogies are beautiful, but I have some doubts about the level of roof detail.

 

My Class 129 Parcels DMU is holding its own so far, but suspect the Class 120 will be RTR soon.

 

I have a Class 124 Transpennine 6 car unit planned for my next DMU build, and I suspect looking at how the price has risen with the Bachmann Blue Pullman that this might be one that has some life span, but you never know.

Again, thank you for all the replies, advice and invaluable help. I hope everyone is keeping safe and well.

Jamie

 

Watch a 119 get released as soon as I finish the power bogie and the glazing.

[thegreenhowards]

1 hour ago, robertcwp said:

I have used them for years too. I put them on one end of a carriage and blank off the gangway on the other end with 0.25 mm black plastic sheet. This is for the ends within set as opposed to at the ends of rakes, where the carriage will have a Sprat & Winkle coupling and usually an end board.

 

I have evolved the way I do the gangways over time and now I make the blanking board with a piece of plastic behind it and secure it with blacktack (much better than Blu-tac). This way I can easily change things if I want to turn a carriage round or in some cases convert an end to a middle or vice-versa (quite a few of my Bachmann Mark 1s are like this). 

 

Modellers Mecca closed their shop but they are still trading online for their gangways and a few other things. See: https://modellers-mecca.co.uk/.

I have used the modellers Mecca corridor connectors and they’re good, but rather expensive if fitting a whole rake. I use Fair Price Models who advertise on eBay. They do a range of different connectors at 12 for £3.99 postage included with discounts for multi purchases. For example:

 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/12-x-00-Gauge-Bachmann-Hornby-MK1-Corridor-Connector-Gangway-Bellows-4mm-BR/122128749200?hash=item1c6f70d290:g:~K4AAOSwQSZXPlEc

 

I have found them easy to fit and very reliable. 

 

Andy
 

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, Jamiel said:

Thank you Tony, PMP, Theakerr, Tony Teague and RobertCWP.

 

Your replies are very helpful indeed. The concertinas I are ones I have cut from light black card/heavy paper – depending on you grams/meter squared definitions.

 

Here is a template I drew up in Photoshop. If it works, then it might be of some use, but hold on for the moment as my layout is not running at the moment.

 

I had assumed that you use two concertinas for each connection, but one going across the full gap makes much more sense. I will watch out for it snagging. I agree that gaps between coaches are unsightly, even if the gaps have to be widened for the curve radii.  

I will also keep an eye out for how the wires perform, they are single strand, but connected to muti-strand with plenty of play just inside the body of the end units.

 

Lovely to see the original Craftsman build, much more generous curtains than my measly ones. I did have fun scratch building the underframe from brass, offcuts, spares and a few resin castings I made. It does follow the look of the prototype, but looking at the most recent Bachmann DMU’s the underframe detail is quite amazing. I agree with Tony that, when you have built something it is your own, and I feel that.

 

As PMP says, it only takes a self-build to make sure a RTR ones comes along soon, and I am sure that someone announced a N gauge Class 120 (Dapol?) recently, and as I have seen with a lot of stock once the CADs are done for one gauge, the others often follow, so I suspect you wish will come pretty soon. Bachmann’s LMS Inspection salon was one example.

 

I am by no means a prolific builder, but over the last few years I have made:

Class 128 DMU parcels unit – Heljan 2 years later. My first conversion, Heljan’s is far better, but I still like mine, I might revisit it one day as it was a first step.

LMS inspection saloon – Bachmann beat me to getting that built. My first brass build, and I really like mine, although it still needs a tiny bit of finishing.

Class 21 diesel – Dapol 1 year later. Dapol’s is lovely, blows mine away.

Bulleid Diesel – Kernow 2 years later. Their bogies are beautiful, but I have some doubts about the level of roof detail.

 

My Class 129 Parcels DMU is holding its own so far, but suspect the Class 120 will be RTR soon.

 

I have a Class 124 Transpennine 6 car unit planned for my next DMU build, and I suspect looking at how the price has risen with the Bachmann Blue Pullman that this might be one that has some life span, but you never know.

Again, thank you for all the replies, advice and invaluable help. I hope everyone is keeping safe and well.

Jamie

Good morning Jamie,

 

An impressive list of builds........

 

'As PMP says, it only takes a self-build to make sure a RTR ones comes along soon,'

 

That's often true, but it can take time (eventually). 

 

Years ago, I was building Thompson Pacifics from scratch (inspired originally by Mike Edge), only to find that (often not long after) a kit would come along. To be told I'd been quick off the mark building Millholme A2/2s and A2/3s when exhibiting Fordley Park at a show, was, I suppose, a sort of compliment, especially as the Millholme kits for the types were hopelessly inaccurate (which, I'd hope, mine weren't). Crownline certainly made a better fist of it near on two decades later and DJH certainly did. Now, two decades after that, we're promised RTR examples from Hornby. At least my kit built A2/1 and A1/1 should be 'safe'. 

 

What I did do was sell-on my scratch-built ones as the better kits came along, building replacements as those kits appeared. 

 

The usual time line (in my own case) is to scratch-build something, and a kit then appears; then kit-build something and an RTR example appears (even though it can take time).

 

All the above said, nothing beats the feeling of being able to say 'I made that!'. 

 

I wish you well with your future building programme.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

12 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Ooh, I'll second that request.  A lot of Tony's shots from ground/platform level have an air of Henry Priestley about them.  Priestley was one of the GREAT railway photographers, usually taking in the wider scene and the infrastructure of the railway; sometimes without even a train in the picture.  This was at a time when most photographers just took 3/4 views of the train and mostly of the locomotives, so recorded very little of what the railway actually looked like at the time.

Though your comments are very kind, with respect, I think it's taking things a bit far comparing my model snaps with the photographs of one of the absolute greats. 

 

All I try to do is to show models as they are, warts and all. Granted, I'm not beyond taking out backgrounds, and, on occasions, removing odd flecks of dust. 

 

When I take a picture (dead easy now with digital), I examine it on the (big) screen on the camera's back (another of the reasons for using powerful, if large, cameras) and, very often, I'll have to take it again. Why? Tiny spiders' webs making 'rigging' between details on locos, and often linking signals; 'guys' with regard to the latter? 

 

Or, lamps and/or headboards are wonky on the fronts of locos.

 

I do try to check for webs, crookedness and things out of place beforehand, but not often successfully. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[grahame]

10 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

When I take a picture (dead easy now with digital), I examine it on the (big) screen on the camera's back (another of the reasons for using powerful, if large, cameras) and, very often, I'll have to take it again. Why? Tiny spiders' webs making 'rigging' between details on locos, and often linking signals; 'guys' with regard to the latter? 

 

Or, lamps and/or headboards are wonky on the fronts of locos.

 

I do try to check for webs, crookedness and things out of place beforehand, but not often successfully. 

 

 

Yes, similarly for me.

 

I check and often see something that needs correcting or straightening that means I need to re- take the snap. And I do find that even after a re- shoot I notice another problem that I'd not spotted the first time. Finally, when I do release the pic I still notice issues, but it's too late then. Curses.

 

[31A]

Regarding gangways, I've used MJT ones for a long time.  I think they look very realistic.  They have a bellows folded up from black paper (the pattern is printed on the paper) and the end plates are brass, representing gangways fitted with an end cover.  I find they work very well; coaches can be coupled and uncoupled with the gangways meeting if the couplings are of suitable length, and can be propelled through pointwork with no problems.  The only slight modification I make is to slightly angle the lamp irons back to reduce the risk of them snagging on the next coach.

 

[robertcwp]

10 hours ago, MJI said:

 

 

Most Western Region aircon TSOs were E, my two typical sets will have between them

 

 

From new, the WR had nearly as many 2f (102) as 2e (114). Some 2d stock moved in later in the 1970s.

[robertcwp]

10 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

I have used the modellers Mecca corridor connectors and they’re good, but rather expensive if fitting a whole rake. I use Fair Price Models who advertise on eBay. They do a range of different connectors at 12 for £3.99 postage included with discounts for multi purchases. For example:

 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/12-x-00-Gauge-Bachmann-Hornby-MK1-Corridor-Connector-Gangway-Bellows-4mm-BR/122128749200?hash=item1c6f70d290:g:~K4AAOSwQSZXPlEc

 

I have found them easy to fit and very reliable. 

 

Andy
 

I have some of those too but think the Modellers Mecca ones are better. The others are a lot cheaper though and do the job.

[Craigw]

I wish I could claim to be as prolific as some on here, though I have been spending quite a bit of time over the last week. I started these not so long ago (by my standards that is) and today I managed to complete them apart from painting. I have 7 GWR open wagons to the painting stage but ideally I would like to make it a dozen and then spend some time painting. These are Coopercraft O4 open wagons, although only the sides and ends are used. The underframe is by Morgan Design with a few other bits and pieces thrown in. I have enjoyed the time building things, the time seems to fly by, Hopefully I can keep this up for the next 2 weeks before I go back to work.

 

Craig Warton

[jwealleans]

I gave up making my own corridor connectors when I saw how cheaply you can pick them upon Ebay.   The ones I have used have never caused a problem despite not having the wings (but they're used on layout curves, nothing under about 3').

[MJI]

16 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

From new, the WR had nearly as many 2f (102) as 2e (114). Some 2d stock moved in later in the 1970s.

 

 

By early 80s seemed mainly 2E, most of the ones I saw with W at the front were 2E.

 

FOs however seemed mainly 2F.

 

But I am relying on 35-40 year old memories and my old spotting notes.

[MJI]

I tried a paper gangway but I just could not make it work well enough.

 

I tried on a Lima BG (now running a cast WM pair and etched sides as something else).

 

Cut plastic card to the correct rubbing plate shape.

 

Glued paper strips to base of gangway. Curved them and glued to rubbing plate.

 

I also tried thin polythene.

 

In the end I gave up trying to do the flexi bit as I think you need to have the rubbing plate sprung and better supported.

[Clem]

Tony, a quick question if I may? The DJH WD chassis....  Has it been updated at all over the years to accommodate other gauges and the possibility of springing, or is it still 1mm thick brass? It's just that if it's been updated, it'll save me a lot of time working out how to scratch build one for EM whilst making sure it is compatible with the cylinders and motion provided.  Thanks in anticipation.

[thegreenhowards]

2 hours ago, robertcwp said:

I have some of those too but think the Modellers Mecca ones are better. The others are a lot cheaper though and do the job.

That’s what I was trying to say, but you put it much more succinctly!

 

But if you’re going to spend the Modellers Mecca type of money, I agree with Steve (31A) that the MJT ones are better still. For me the cheap Fair Price Models one do for ‘layout rakes’ - e.g. a rake of Bachmann Mark 1s. However, if building a special one off coach, I may treat it to an MJT version.

 

Andy

[thegreenhowards]

Some time ago, there was a discussion about the Isinglass Gresley kits. I’m now nearing completion on my first attempt, so I thought I’d share it to give an idea what they come out like in the hands of a somewhat impatient modeller. This is the D.307 twin which was similar to the plywood tourist stock but made from steel.

 

The diagrams and Isinglass show this as having Gresley style domed outer ends, however Clive M of this Parish has raised a question as to whether they in fact had straight ends like the plywood sided stock - I haven’t found a picture so any comments welcome (although if its the wrong answer I’d probably rather remain in blissful ignorance!).

 

Overall I’m fairly pleased with the result. However the sides took a lot of rubbing down to remove the 3D printing lines and some roughness is still evident close up as I ran out of patience. This rubbing down would be more difficult on a teak panelled coach as the panelling would get in the way. However in this case a little remaining texture might be less obvious and could possibly be passed off as wood grain?

 

I bought the Isinglass underframe as well (optional extra) which consists of the floor pan, sole bars and bogies (heavy duty in the centre and standard at the outer ends in this case). It is a wonderfully simple clip in fit to the body. The bogies seem fine, but the design takes Hornby ones as well, so I’ve tried a Hornby at one end. Other underframe bits are MJT. I’ve followed the supplied diagram, but this shows only one dynamo which I thought was surprising. Is this plausible?

 

 

Main work remaining is glazing and interior. I’m not sure what to do about the interior as my normal approach is to use Southern pride seats, but their second class one is out of stock and has been for over a year. Any suggestions welcome.

 

Andy

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Clem said:

Tony, a quick question if I may? The DJH WD chassis....  Has it been updated at all over the years to accommodate other gauges and the possibility of springing, or is it still 1mm thick brass? It's just that if it's been updated, it'll save me a lot of time working out how to scratch build one for EM whilst making sure it is compatible with the cylinders and motion provided.  Thanks in anticipation.

Good afternoon Clem,

 

As far as I know (I haven't built a DJH WD for over a decade) no alterations have been made to the chassis.

 

In fairness to DJH, their target market for their 4mm loco kits has always been OO. Years ago, the DJH frames (in the Banbury days) were (I think) supplied by K's (the two firms were in the same town), and consisted of nothing more than strips of one stamped 16th brass with spacers and bearings. Brakes? No, that's super-detailing! 

 

From the A1 onward (1976/'77) the frames were etched, but still had large cut-outs for open-framed-type motors, but now with brakes.

 

I've built DJH chassis in EM (two for Retford among others) with few problems, but they're not sprung/compensated (no need?). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

As promised, some 'building' shots on Little Bytham.

 

These are the first. There are several more to be processed.

 

 

The stationmaster's house, built by Ian Wilson from card using his own computer-generated designs. The garage is from Scenic Route Models. 

 

In reality this building is now a private house.

 

 

The booking office, also built by Ian Wilson. Amazingly, it still survives but is in a poor state. The two concrete posts supporting the nameboard are also still extant. 

 

Seen from the other side, a view not normally available to visitors. 

 

 

And seen from the station platforms. This also shows the relationship of the Willoughby Arms (built by Bob Dawson) to the station, and the direct access to the platforms via the footbridge. 

 

 

The footbridge itself; again, built by Ian Wilson from his own designs (generated from the original drawings). I detailed it. 

 

 

Seen from Marsh Bridge (the south end scenic break), we have Tom Couling's lovely little rustic barn and some of the half-relief cottages on the east side of Station Road (built by me). 

 

More to follow........

 

 

[Clem]

41 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Clem,

 

As far as I know (I haven't built a DJH WD for over a decade) no alterations have been made to the chassis.

 

In fairness to DJH, their target market for their 4mm loco kits has always been OO. Years ago, the DJH frames (in the Banbury days) were (I think) supplied by K's (the two firms were in the same town), and consisted of nothing more than strips of one stamped 16th brass with spacers and bearings. Brakes? No, that's super-detailing! 

 

From the A1 onward (1976/'77) the frames were etched, but still had large cut-outs for open-framed-type motors, but now with brakes.

 

I've built DJH chassis in EM (two for Retford among others) with few problems, but they're not sprung/compensated (no need?). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thank you for the info. I'll continue my scratch built chassis in that case. Springing/compensation is a personal thing. Since I did a little P4 a few years ago, it was something that I brought into my  EM modelling. It does take more time - particularly if you've got to work out new dimensions etc. - but I love the ride and sound of a sprung chassis going smoothly through point work, especially if, like me,  you're not the best permanent way fabricator. You also get the added bonus of every wheel touching the track, ensuring perfect current collection. But, as already stated, it does take considerably more time.

 

Wishing you and Mo good health and happiness,

 

Clem

[MarkC]

Corridor connectors - I've just bought some from Fair Price via evilBay, for use on assorted DC Kits & Bachmann DMUs which I have; plus the Class 124 project which will be my next 'biggie'. All parts are at home - I just need to get home myself now...

 

It's been interesting to see the comments about them, plus the arrangements people have made for coupling their coaching stock. Food for thought for when I get started on the Class 124.

 

Mark

[Tony Wright]

More LB buildings.........

 

 

Definitely one of the 'signature' buildings on LB; The Willoughby Arms public house (how I miss going to it right now!). 

 

Beautifully-made by Bob Dawson, it still stands, not much-altered, though the water tower (to the right) was demolished a few years ago. 

 

 

 

 

The island platforms buildings were also beautifully-built by Bob Dawson, with help from his grandson, Scott Waterfield. The square structure on the roof line was a water tank, supplying the station and the adjacent railway properties. Mains water was not universal in 1958, especially in rural areas. 

 

The GNR posters have lasted well! 

 

 

A further view of the stationmaster's house. 

 

I found building that raked retaining wall, complete with curve, a bit of a puzzle. 

 

I think one of the appeals of Little Bytham as a prototype to model is the rising and falling topography around the railway formation. 

 

 

And to finish for now with one of the more-humble buildings; one of the S&T huts. It was built by Ian Wilson using the original plans and his own photographs.

 

More later. 

 

 

[copleyhill007]

The buildings are so much a natural part of the railway landscape. They are truly awe inspiring.

Remembering times past on Doncaster station during the quiet time looking at the detail of the station buildings, the plant and the lner footbridge across the tracks.

I also looked carefully at my Lyons apple pie from the refreshment room before the inevitable shouts of "streak"!

[Tony Wright]

The last of today's photographs..........

 

 

Looking into the goods yard from the entrance. 

 

The goods office was built by Ian Wilson.

 

This site is now occupied by four detached houses.

 

 

The stable (Little Bytham had a horse for shunting at various times - how does one model that?). Built by Ian Wilson, this was originally Lord Willougby's engine house.

 

The black structure to the left was a coal bunker (presumably for station use?). 

 

 

The goods shed - the prototype Prototype Models structure - the very first one, built by Ian Wilson (Prototype Models' original proprietor). 

 

The prototype survived the closure of the goods yard and lifting of the track by many years, but was itself demolished in 2008. 

 

The station cottages (the real things occupied by the signalman and a booking clerk and their families respectively) were built by Bob Dawson. 

 

 

 

Little Bytham's main line signal box; only afforded the name of 'Bytham'. It was built by Bob Dawson and Scott Waterfield. 

 

 

Wooden dwellings in Witham Road, the originals erected by the Midland Railway when the joint line was built in 1897. They were homes of railway labourers and lasted until the early-'60s.

 

I built these from Wills plastic sheets, using some etched brass windows (from where, I've forgotten). A photograph provided by the Willoughby helped in the making. 

 

I think my architectural modelling capabilities just about stretch to something like these.

 

Sorry Archie, I couldn't resist putting a train in the picture!

 

 

And the dwellings at the north end of Station Road before reaching the MR/M&GNR overbridge.

 

I built the nearest one by modifying a Scenic Route laser-cut kit, and also the wooden labourers' cottages. Bob Dawson built the pair of ex-GN semis.

 

And yes, the same train.......

 

 

Looking from the main line embankment, we can look into Ellen Sparkes' lovely little gardens. 

 

The two GN semis still exist, but have been altered/extended considerably since 1958, necessitating guesstimation based on anecdotal evidence.

 

I must say I've thoroughly enjoyed taking and processing these building pictures today. They certainly give a different perspective from my normal concentration on the trains, and are a tribute to the guys/girl (abstracting myself) whose work is so important to Little Bytham.

 

Isolation has enabled me (given me the time) to participate in what is really self-indulgence, though the pictures seem to please quite a few observers. 

 

I really must get down to building again..........

[Tony Wright]

5 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Some time ago, there was a discussion about the Isinglass Gresley kits. I’m now nearing completion on my first attempt, so I thought I’d share it to give an idea what they come out like in the hands of a somewhat impatient modeller. This is the D.307 twin which was similar to the plywood tourist stock but made from steel.

 

The diagrams and Isinglass show this as having Gresley style domed outer ends, however Clive M of this Parish has raised a question as to whether they in fact had straight ends like the plywood sided stock - I haven’t found a picture so any comments welcome (although if its the wrong answer I’d probably rather remain in blissful ignorance!).

 

Overall I’m fairly pleased with the result. However the sides took a lot of rubbing down to remove the 3D printing lines and some roughness is still evident close up as I ran out of patience. This rubbing down would be more difficult on a teak panelled coach as the panelling would get in the way. However in this case a little remaining texture might be less obvious and could possibly be passed off as wood grain?

 

I bought the Isinglass underframe as well (optional extra) which consists of the floor pan, sole bars and bogies (heavy duty in the centre and standard at the outer ends in this case). It is a wonderfully simple clip in fit to the body. The bogies seem fine, but the design takes Hornby ones as well, so I’ve tried a Hornby at one end. Other underframe bits are MJT. I’ve followed the supplied diagram, but this shows only one dynamo which I thought was surprising. Is this plausible?

 

 

Main work remaining is glazing and interior. I’m not sure what to do about the interior as my normal approach is to use Southern pride seats, but their second class one is out of stock and has been for over a year. Any suggestions welcome.

 

Andy

Good evening Andy,

 

You've made a nice job of the steel twins. Thanks for showing us.

 

'The diagrams and Isinglass show this as having Gresley style domed outer ends, however Clive M of this Parish has raised a question as to whether they in fact had straight ends like the plywood sided stock - I haven’t found a picture so any comments welcome (although if its the wrong answer I’d probably rather remain in blissful ignorance!).'

 

I honestly don't know the configuration of the roof ends. I'd be surprised if John Edgson got this essential feature wrong, but I can't find pictures of the steel twins to substantiate it.

 

I'll keep looking.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.