Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Some more 'boxes I've used with a little success.................

 

 

This what a Markits' two-stage 'box looks like, made-up before installation. 

 

One of the advantages of this type of mount (with the fixing points to the outside) is that the motor can be removed without taking the 'box out of the frames. 

 

 

And here's what it was driving (still is). A P2! 

 

No visible drive with the body on here.

 

 

London Road Models sell a simple one-stage gear mount to go with its kits. 

 

Here, I've 'under-slung' one to fit into a J6.

 

 

Last autumn, I bought an ABS L1 from the estate of the late Roy Jackson. 

 

I think it was the same one featured on page 44 of Iain Rice's Whitemetal Locos A Kitbuilder's Guide, Wild Swan, 1989. In that, it's credited as being built by Geoff Kent. Naturally, it was in EM, and had an XO4-style open-framed motor. It didn't work! I 'took pity' on it, re-gauged it to OO (by merely removing spacing washers and replacing the axles) and fitted a High-Level /Mashima combo to produce a really sweet-running loco. 

 

 

This is why I took pity on it! Though it shares the same number as the one featured on Dunwich, could it possibly be the same one? How could the body have got into this state?

 

No matter, I repainted it and now is a regular runner on LB.

 

It had the wrong number, anyway - 67770 was a contract-built example with an open footplate at the front and plate steps. Repainted, it's now representative of a Darlington-built one.  

 

 

Two DJH Thompson Pacific chassis, the top for an A2/3 and the bottom for an A2/2. The A2/3 has an AM9 'box (GB1) and the A2/2 a GB4 'box, driven by a D13 motor. 

 

Note how I've nibbled away part of the gearbox frames to achieve an easy fit into the respective bodies (this doesn't affect the performance at all). Note also the 'anchor' on the top chassis, needed to prevent the drive clattering up inside the body under load. 

 

 

Backwards Miniatures used to sell little gearboxes (sold under the name 'Porter's Cap', I think). They were really sweet, though only really suitable for powering smaller locos - in this case, a Coopercraft B12/3. 

 

 

The true 'Rolls-Royce' of loco drives? What do Portescaps go for these days?  

 

 

Edited September 5, 2020 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Bucoops]

7 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

 

 

I can't imagine that cutting hardened steel rod with even 'chunky' pliers can do the pliers much good!

 

To every problem there are at least two solutions - the proper way and a bodge. Money spent on tools and equipment is the best investment you can make - it'll save you time, worry and injury, and result in a far better outcome.

 

John Isherwood.

 

I think they are CK from when it was a respectable brand (not seen them in a while). I bought them probably around mid 1990s when I was building a layout with overhead lines and wanted to do a lot of cutting of piano wire. Seems to have survived so far

[t-b-g]

59 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi Tony,

We had the identical situation when we first exhibited Hungerford at the host club's exhibition - Wakefield.  At the time all the large locomotives on the layout (King, Castles, 28xx, etc.) had been built by the then late Mike Bradley and were fitted with X05 style motors and Romford(?) gears (steel worm and brass pinion).  The trains on Hungerford comprise heavy kit built vehicles  and are of prototype length.  The layout performed well on the Friday night but part way through Saturday morning Mike's locomotives started failing with stripped gears and by the afternoon we had run out of spares.  In sheer desperation I purchased half a dozen Portescap units (Ouch!)  and through most of Saturday night I replaced the gears in the failed locomotives.  This included having to file out any milled brass frames to create a large enough opening to accept the gear boxes.   We got through Sunday without further incident but after the show I commenced on a programme of work to replace the Romford gears from the remainder of Mike's locomotives.  In several cases I completely replaced the chassis with Perseverance kits.   These locomotives have given great service year on year ever since without further incident.  A testament to the quality of the Portescap units.  Its such a shame that the later units make such a dreadful noise.

 

I'm sure the original gears would have given excellent service on the average home layout but under exhibition conditions they couldn't cope.  Not an experience I would ever want to repeat.

 

Frank      

 

The joys of exhibiting!

 

I bet it felt good though when you turned up Sunday morning with a bunch of good runners to get you through the day.

 

When I first got involved with exhibitions and EM with a now deceased friend called Tony Johnson, that also involved a bit of late night work on the Saturday.  Our "party piece" to show how easy EM is involved buying a RTR loco on the Saturday, very often a cheap one from the club second hand stall, then we would take a tool kit back to the hotel or home and turn up Sunday with it converted to EM, perhaps renumbered, screw couplings fitted and maybe weathered.

 

We didn't quite have the same pressure on us that you must have had!   

[jamie92208]

49 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

 

The true 'Rolls-Royce' of loco drives? What do Portescaps go for these days?  

 

 

I thi k that the 4mm ones were £45 and the 7mm ones £75. I've just seen a 7mm one advertised on the Guild forum for £110.  As an aside motor gearboxes were one one of the few items that used to disappear from the Guild Bring and Buy stall and we had to build some covered display cases for such items.

 

Jamie

[Adam88]

On 03/09/2020 at 07:58, Tony Wright said:

Many thanks Adam (is '88' the year of your birth?). 

 

I'm glad I didn't drop too much of a blooper! 

 

You're right; this is a model railway thread and details on various bits of models should take precedence. However, English is also very important and it seems to me that 'standards' are continuously being eroded across the whole media thingy. 

 

It's my belief that general standards of spoken/written English have never been universally-good (is that a correct use of a hyphen?). I only need to look back over my years in teaching to recall letters from some parents (who were educated long before my 'training') to tell that, but the 'professional' media going back some 40/50 years (and more) was usually correct - the radio, telly, newspapers and so on. Not now.

 

Anyway, a delight to correspond. I don't mind being picked up where I get my English usage incorrect (I deserve to be), but it remains the case that some correspondents are 'sensitive' if their (poor) use of English is commented on.

 

Best draw a line..................?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony,

 

The reason for '88' is far more prosaic.  When I signed up for RMWeb the name Adam had already been taken so I just tapped a couple of times on the keyboard at random to distinguish my handle.  When I was young I knew no other Adams but nearly every Tom, Dick and Harry seems to be called Adam nowadays.  Had I been a child of '88 I would have missed out on a number of fascinating steam era railway experiences - going to on holiday to Robin Hood's Bay, luggage in advance, changing at York (seeing the ex-LNER pacifics) and Scarborough.  When I was about three or four years old my mother took a part-time job with Neilsen's market research agency and that involved a lot of travel by local steam-hauled train to the regional office for a briefing and then back to the station for another train ride to wherever she had been sent and the reverse in the afternoon.  There seemed to be several mums doing this as I can recall that the offices had a collection of Dinky and Matchbox toys to keep myself and a few other children out of mischief during the briefing.  It was a formative age and gave me a life-long interest.

 

The line we're drawing may not be straight or continuous but it will do for now.

 

All the best,

 

Adam

Edited September 6, 2020 by Adam88
typo

[MJI]

High Level

 

I have built one of their motor bogies to go in a DMU.

 

Runs nicely and even better since I replaced a few pickups with shorted out wheels.

[96701]

Regarding gearboxes. I will never forget the smug look on Geoff Brewin's face as he set off his Comet MGB gearbox powered resin bodied Duke of Gloucester on a 1 in 100 slope with eight Comet Mk Is on without the slightest hint of slipping.

 

Sadly, 2 things..... he would not sell them as a kit because the gears were helical and required great care to build and then he went and died before he could really market them properly.

 

[chris p bacon]

6 hours ago, Headstock said:

I thought you may have discovered a new GNR NPC type, such as a hound van.

 

It's on the test build bench, after I've finished the D343.

[jrg1]

13 hours ago, micklner said:

Re the HL video build , all good tips,  just a couple of minor differences in how I do the assembly in the order listed as  in the video

 

Removing etches . I always use a sharp Stanley knife, I have had Swan Morton blades break through the mounting hole where they fit onto on the handle when trying to cutting metal, not recomended.

 

I personally cut the steel rod in a small vice with a cutting disc and a Dremel drill , make small cuts ensure the steel is cool ,then another small cut and continue till cut through. Nevr let the metal overheat.

 

Dont burn yourself when soldering, in this case hold the metal onto a soldering block with a wood cocktail stick . I dont like pain !!

 

I dont like the Lego brick idea for checking corners , always only use a good quality set square. There is no need to check the inside of the corner , the outside will be the same angle !!.

 

Use a scrawker to ease the folding joints before bending of any kit  etches. Cut along the etched  line until you see a faint witness line/mark  on the other plain side of the metal. A much easier bend can then be done, and the bend will close up better too.

 

Not sure if he soldered the corners on the inside of the etch after folding, before further assembly. A must do practise.

 

I fit the motor to the box , the attach the worm to the shaft . The worm should be sliding fit on the shaft , securing with superglue. before gluing dont guess the gap ,centre the worm over the top gear , ensure there is running clearance between the gear and worm then glue the worm in position.

 

cheers.

 

 

 

 

I find a miniature chisel with the point ground to a narrow angle convenient for removing etches-a very quick.  

An Olfa P450 carpet cutter is ideal for easing folding joints.

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, 96701 said:

Regarding gearboxes. I will never forget the smug look on Geoff Brewin's face as he set off his Comet MGB gearbox powered resin bodied Duke of Gloucester on a 1 in 100 slope with eight Comet Mk Is on without the slightest hint of slipping.

 

Sadly, 2 things..... he would not sell them as a kit because the gears were helical and required great care to build and then he went and died before he could really market them properly.

 

Isn't that the DoG which you most-generously donated for sale for CRUK, Phil? Many thanks again.

 

Did it have a Maxon motor? Whatever it was, it just breezed around Little Bytham, handling anything I chose to stick behind it. 

 

You allude to the care needed in assembling the 'box, but wasn't the question of cost another factor? I recall an excellent Chinese meal enjoyed with Geoff in St. Albans in early 2011 where he mentioned a new gearbox he was considering (presumably the same one?). One concern was the cost of the (high-quality) gears; which meant it could well be near Portescap prices, complete with motor, and yet still have to be built. 

 

Anyway, it was (is) much quieter than a Portescap, at least the later ones. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[PMP]

For fine etch cutting, things like Shawplans extreme range, and Ambis, Rumney et al, for the small components the Tamiya scissors are excellent, I also use them for Modelu feed line cutting. Not cheap but good tools rarely are. For heavier duty work its a technique John Hayes showed me, a new Stanley knife blade or resharpened with a piece of formica type material as the backstop. For stuff like a DJH mainframe I'll use a piercing saw.

 

https://www.tamiya.com/english/products/74066diamondfile/index.htm

[DougN]

As I have been using the xucon etched shears for a number of years they are great quality and I wouldn't be without them. Just be aware they are expensive but worth it!

[APOLLO]

Now THIS is a gearbox - Napier Deltic

 

 

I now know where Lima got there inspiration from for their model locomitive drives !!!!!! (which I have never had the slightest problem with by the way).

 

Anyone have a No 10 Meccano set "When they wuz a lad" ?

 

 

Brit15

[Tony Wright]

Concerning the old-fashioned Romford worm/gear sets, what must remembered is that (at the time they'd be used) what else was there? 

 

I don't know when the likes of Portescaps first appeared, but in my 'formative' years, I used five-pole clones of XO4s and Romford gear sets - 30:1 or 40:1. Granted, they needed very careful meshing (otherwise the 'horror stories' described yesterday would occur). 

 

Some kits of the day had a triangular cut-out in the frames, designed to take an XO4-type motor (those modelling in more-accurate gauges than OO could drop the motor between the frames). For frames which didn't have a cut-out, I made a steel jig with the correct angle cut in it (taking that angle from an old Tri-ang chassis). All I did was to put this on a pair of frames sweated together, insert an axle in the bearing hole in the jig and the frames, then scribe the correct angle on to the one frame. Then it was just a question of milling the appropriate triangular cut-out in the frames, separating them afterwards. The frames would then be jig-assembled. Where my cut-out jig is now, I have no idea. 

 

It certainly did its job, because I never had a problem with brass gears being chewed away. 

 

A few of those 'dinosaurs' I made survive still in my possession today.............

 

 

Including this hand-cut Jamieson A2/1, built in 1976. The motor is a Jepson, and I have spares because there's too much lead Araldited into the boiler to be able to accommodate a replacement (modern) gearbox! 

 

 

Even after 44 years of hard-running on Fordley Park, Leighford, Stoke Summit and (now) Little Bytham, the brass gears are still in good condition. 

 

 

Another Jepson/Romford combination in this K4, which I scratch-built in 1983. It represents the loco as first preserved.

 

It says something for the robustness of these drives because, having let some friends borrow it, one of them dropped it on to a hard floor! The RH front of the tender, the RH side of the cab and spectacle plate were stove-in, and were rather buckled. Repairs are on-going (as can be seen). Actually, it's been left in its box for over a decade because I couldn't face fixing it. However, it might just be possible; and, with a dab of paint here and there? Especially since I painted it. 

 

The 'battleship' chassis (made from one sixteenth brass) wasn't even bruised! It still runs beautifully. 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2020 by Tony Wright
to add something

[jwealleans]

I've just acquired a K3 with a very similar mechanism to those above and although the motor is tired it does run very smoothly and almost silently.  I don't know how old it is but from the crud on the wheels it's done a lot of work.   Plenty of room in that boiler so I think I will try one of the new High Level motors in it. 

[Clem]

18 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Frank,

 

Got you, the Chivers LNER dia 120 BY. I'm slightly disappointed, I thought you may have discovered a new GNR NPC type, such as a hound van.

 

Two things to consider, the dia 120 BY were built for the former Great Eastern section, they wouldn't have been seen pottering around the moors above Bradford.  A further five, to a different diagram, were built for the southern area or the GN mainline, a tad more plausible but they differed considerably from your kit.

 

A second thing to consider, beyond historical accuracy. Many different  manufacturers have produced kits of these annoying little vans over the years, none have succeeded in producing an accurate one. Unfortunately, the Chiverse kit is no exception. You would end up with, a typically beautifully crafted sprung chassis, carrying an inaccurate body, of a prototype unlikely to be seen in the vicinity of Clayton, unless kidnapped by local sheep farmers. Sheep van anybody?

Good Afternoon Andrew,

I was interested in Frank's latest project with the 'Parkside GN pigeon van' (sorry Frank, I couldn't resist it :-) ). I note your remarks about the D120. I have also ordered one of these with a view to gradually working up to make up the train illustrated (below). (Sorry if I've posted this before).  I certainly thought it was a 120 but may be mistaken. A couple of questions. If not a D120, do you know what diagram it is? and, as it seems close to a D120, I wonder how difficult it would be to convert it to whatever diagram this is. There was a considerable number of D120s built (56) so I'm thinking (hoping?) they may have spread, at least to the East Midlands.

 

[Headstock]

5 minutes ago, Clem said:

Good Afternoon Andrew,

I was interested in Frank's latest project with the 'Parkside GN pigeon van' (sorry Frank, I couldn't resist it :-) ). I note your remarks about the D120. I have also ordered one of these with a view to gradually working up to make up the train illustrated (below). (Sorry if I've posted this before).  I certainly thought it was a 120 but may be mistaken. A couple of questions. If not a D120, do you know what diagram it is? and, as it seems close to a D120, I wonder how difficult it would be to convert it to whatever diagram this is. There was a considerable number of D120s built (56) so I'm thinking (hoping?) they may have spread, at least to the East Midlands.

 

 

 

Afternoon Clem,

 

The dia. 120 did spread in BR days. However, both the GN and GC sections had their own distinct versions to different diagrams. The GN version for example, had a shorter body and was built on reclaimed wooden underframes from GN carriages, the wheelbase was different as a result. The top lights were much simplified from the distinctive pivoting type of the 120's and they had outside springs in relation to the W irons. The dia 120 were also not an amorphous lump, they were built by a number of works over a period of time and incorporated different arrangements of battery boxes, rainstrip and other details. I think I have other pictures of the van above, it was quite unique, in being part of the booked formation of that set rather than an add on. I will get back to you but I don't think it is a dia.120.

[Headstock]

This is a dia 177 van photographed at Hull Paragon in 1964.

 

The main things to note are.

 

Three ventilators on the roof, not four as on 120.

 

The simple toplights without rain guards or inset opening pivots.

 

The thick wooden headstock and longer wheelbase.

 

The outside springs and original axle boxes.

 

The double battery boxes on the opposite end from 120.

 

Vac cylinder and dynamo on opposite sides.

 

The body is slightly shorter on this variant but not that apparent in 4MM.

 

Also note that the telegraph code is BY, not BYP.

 

Embedded link to 53a models below.

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2020 by Headstock
add info

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, jwealleans said:

I've just acquired a K3 with a very similar mechanism to those above and although the motor is tired it does run very smoothly and almost silently.  I don't know how old it is but from the crud on the wheels it's done a lot of work.   Plenty of room in that boiler so I think I will try one of the new High Level motors in it. 

If you decide to just change the motor, Jonathan, I have plenty of spares. 

 

There must be thousands of kit-built locos out there from 30/40/50 years ago with XO4 clones (or even XO4s themselves) powering them. Many must still be in good running order, and, though they'll never be as quiet as modern motor/gearbox combos, in my experience they're usually powerful and extremely long-lived. 

 

The major problem is disguising them...................

 

 

I scratch-built this O1 over 40 years ago, using a Jepson motor (it tows a K's ROD tender). Despite 'filling in' around the firebox's base, the cut-out in the frames is still far too-visible. 

 

In my defence, it was 'of its day'.

 

 

An even worse example of lack of motor disguise is this similarly-aged Nu-Cast O2/3, running on a scratch-built chassis. This one has an MW005 motor (with wider brushes, so it's even more prominent). Indolence and forgetfulness has meant it's looked like this for over 40 years. The least I could do is paint the motor parts matt black and/or make some thin Plastikard 'cheeks'. In time................ However, if I still can't disguise drives (after all these years), then I can't see too much hope! 

 

 

Of course, in tighter perspective, the horribly-visible drive is all but invisible. Here, a lack of lamps would be the 'no-no' (even if a couple of lamp brackets are missing!). 

 

Both these veterans still run smoothly (if not silently) and have plenty of power to pull really heavy trains. Which, in a way, begs the question; are they still good enough as 'layout locos'? Good enough, at a distance (the further the better?) to still be employed, but not be scrutinised (and definitely not photographed!) at close-quarters; rather like some of Retford's older work-horses. 

 

 

A much newer O2/3 build of mine (though the kit, acquired very much second-hand, was of the same vintage), with the drive (slightly) better-disguised. No need for a cut-out in the (still scratch-built) frames because the Branchlines' gearbox raised the motor clear (though the worm can just be seen). 

 

I suppose in a nod towards 'better' standards, I've fitted brakes to this one. 

 

I suppose it all comes down to what one 'needs'. Obviously, on a layout like LB (or Grantham) plenty of 2-8-0 freight locos are required. One could, of course, use RTR Heljan, Bachmann or Hornby locos (though an O1 is too late for Grantham), with no visible drives at all. However, that's not what 'modelling' is about to me. 

 

I'll continue to cause 'outrage' among many by my cavalier attitude towards visible bits of whirling metal............................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2020 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Clem said:

Good Afternoon Andrew,

I was interested in Frank's latest project with the 'Parkside GN pigeon van' (sorry Frank, I couldn't resist it :-) ). I note your remarks about the D120. I have also ordered one of these with a view to gradually working up to make up the train illustrated (below). (Sorry if I've posted this before).  I certainly thought it was a 120 but may be mistaken. A couple of questions. If not a D120, do you know what diagram it is? and, as it seems close to a D120, I wonder how difficult it would be to convert it to whatever diagram this is. There was a considerable number of D120s built (56) so I'm thinking (hoping?) they may have spread, at least to the East Midlands.

 

 

 

 

Not a great reproduction but for comparison sake, the original Stratford built dia. 120 BY is shown below. In addition to the differences mentioned above, re roof vents, outside springs etc, note the steel underframe, shorter wheelbase, the single battery boxes mounted symmetrically on the underframe and the Stratford style pointed rainstrip.

 

 

Edited September 6, 2020 by Headstock
add info

[96701]

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Isn't that the DoG which you most-generously donated for sale for CRUK, Phil? Many thanks again.

 

Did it have a Maxon motor? Whatever it was, it just breezed around Little Bytham, handling anything I chose to stick behind it. 

 

You allude to the care needed in assembling the 'box, but wasn't the question of cost another factor? I recall an excellent Chinese meal enjoyed with Geoff in St. Albans in early 2011 where he mentioned a new gearbox he was considering (presumably the same one?). One concern was the cost of the (high-quality) gears; which meant it could well be near Portescap prices, complete with motor, and yet still have to be built. 

 

Anyway, it was (is) much quieter than a Portescap, at least the later ones. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Yes on all counts, Tony. 

[Headstock]

3 hours ago, Clem said:

Good Afternoon Andrew,

I was interested in Frank's latest project with the 'Parkside GN pigeon van' (sorry Frank, I couldn't resist it :-) ). I note your remarks about the D120. I have also ordered one of these with a view to gradually working up to make up the train illustrated (below). (Sorry if I've posted this before).  I certainly thought it was a 120 but may be mistaken. A couple of questions. If not a D120, do you know what diagram it is? and, as it seems close to a D120, I wonder how difficult it would be to convert it to whatever diagram this is. There was a considerable number of D120s built (56) so I'm thinking (hoping?) they may have spread, at least to the East Midlands.

 

 

 

An update for you Clem,

 

I've looked at a better image of the above train and also enhanced your picture. No way is the van in the photo a dia 210, it is probably one of those built for the GN section. One obvious giveaway is that the dia 210 vans were taller, notice the shorter height of the van seen in your picture, compared to the contemporary passenger stock*. On enhancing your image, the outside springs are apparent against the W irons and I'm sure the toplights are just bog standard. These features are confirmed by the better photograph of the train on the 'Tracks through Grantham' website.

 

As you know, I'm not the world's greatest fan of these vans, mainly because they are so misused, misunderstood and abused by modele railway Hobbyists. I think their popularity comes about because they were still around in the seventies and they have a silly nickname. Back in the day and outside the GE, they were actually comparatively rare in the grand scheme of things. Every LNER layout thinks they need one, they don't, they need something else, they have become an LNER/ ER cliche, like the bus on a bridge.  Yet no one can be bothered to produce an accurate model of one, a strange state of affairs. 

 

On the other hand, You have a cast iron case to have one of the little blighters on your layout. The opportunity is their to produce the first accurate model of one, both physically and historically, in the hole history of model railways. Ill shall make you a medal, or at least a cup of tea before I get my coat.

 

*One of the things that the Chiverse kit has got wrong is that the sides are too short between the bottom edge and the underside of the cornice!
 

Edited September 6, 2020 by Headstock
add info

[SP Steve]

On 06/09/2020 at 15:42, Headstock said:

One of the things that the Chivers kit has got wrong is that the sides are too short between the bottom edge and the underside of the cornice!

 

 

I'm in the process of throwing one of these together and to my eyes one of the biggest differences between kit and prototype is that the sole bars are too far recessed in from the bottom edge of the body sides.

 

Studying the various pictures I have and on line images of the preserved example shows that the top web of the sole bar is virtually even with body paneling whilst on the kit it is recessed quite a way back.

 

On my take I've remedied this by overlaying U shaped plastic channels on top of the kit sole bars but of course this does away with the rivet details which then need to be re-instated afterwards.

 

There should also be a slight gap between the sole bar web and body sides as the prototypes seem to sit on packing pieces inserted between the two.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by SP Steve

[Clem]

3 hours ago, Headstock said:

This is a dia 177 van photographed at Hull Paragon in 1964.

 

The main things to note are.

 

Three ventilators on the roof, not four as on 120.

 

The simple toplights without rain guards or inset opening pivots.

 

The thick wooden headstock and longer wheelbase.

 

The outside springs and original axle boxes.

 

The double battery boxes on the opposite end from 120.

 

Vac cylinder and dynamo on opposite sides.

 

The body is slightly shorter on this variant but not that apparent in 4MM.

 

Also note that the telegraph code is BY, not BYP.

 

Embedded link to 53a models below.

Thanks Andrew, I think those mods are pretty do-able. I'll think, if he does that fits the vehicle, I'll start off with a Masokits sprung wagon W-iron set for a long wheelbase. I can then fit the springs on the outside. I'll need to look at the toplights and the vents should be easy enough to change. The rest looks like simple placement. 

 

I'm closing in on completing the D246 and I'll post a picture of it later (32 windows to cut and fit!). I may also look at a Diagram 61 BT(5) using kirks as per the D246. The Kirk solutions haven't got the finesse of an etched brass model but I think they do pass muster as part of the carriage scene in the mid 1950s.

[Headstock]

43 minutes ago, SP Steve said:

 

I'm in the process of throwing one of these together and to my eyes one of the biggest differences between kit and prototype is that the sole bars are too far recessed in from the bottom edge of the body sides.

 

Studying the various pictures I have and on line images of the preserved example shows that the top web of the sole bar is virtually even with body paneling whilst on the kit it is recessed quite a way back.

 

On my take I've remedied this by overlaying U shaped plastic channels on top of the kit sole bars but of course this does away with the rivet details which then need to be re-instated afterwards.

 

There should also be a slight gap between the sole bar web and body sides as the prototypes seem to sit on packing pieces inserted between the two.

 

 

 

Good afternoon SP steve,

 

Nice to see a bit of kit bashing. The body should be narrower than contemporary passenger carriages, as all Gresley NPC's were. Thus the solebars should be more prominent towards the edge as you describe, that is assuming the kit is the correct width across the body. The solebar wan't a U channel however, rather an L channel with a bulb angle on the bottom edge. You may wish to look again at the dynamo position and orientation. Be wary of preserved examples, like some kits, they deserve their own diagram number.

 

22 minutes ago, Clem said:

Thanks Andrew, I think those mods are pretty do-able. I'll think, if he does that fits the vehicle, I'll start off with a Masokits sprung wagon W-iron set for a long wheelbase. I can then fit the springs on the outside. I'll need to look at the toplights and the vents should be easy enough to change. The rest looks like simple placement. 

 

I'm closing in on completing the D246 and I'll post a picture of it later (32 windows to cut and fit!). I may also look at a Diagram 61 BT(5) using kirks as per the D246. The Kirk solutions haven't got the finesse of an etched brass model but I think they do pass muster as part of the carriage scene in the mid 1950s.

 

Evening Clem,

 

I'm checking up on the GN batch, I spy a different vac cylinder arrangement come battery box fitment on these. Chiverse cocked up the toplights for the dia 120, they may be actually be appropriate for your model. Most of these BY kits have been an amalgamation of features from different diagrams.

 

On building, I have almost completed all four sides (plus van compartment sides) on my second dia 210 twin, oodles of panels, droplights and door stops, do I get a medal too?

Edited September 6, 2020 by Headstock