Wright writes.....

[Headstock]

52 minutes ago, Clem said:

I'm hoping I got my order in before he pulled the plug!

 

Thanks for the chivers van heads up on dimensions. I always hack the Kirks about in an effort to get buffer and body heights as close as possible. When I get it, I'll do my best.

 

I must admit to being pretty puzzled by one or two of the CWNs for summer 1954 where I can't find a diagram to fit the twin or twins in the consist. It quotes a BT(5)-CL(2-5) twin which I can't seem to identify at all. There's also a BT(6)-CL(3-4) that I'm struggling to find also. Any ideas?

 

I was after the GC matchboard sliding door full brake, possibly a T (10) as well. The latter is a little more flexible, the former was around for quite some time. No worries though, the new dia. 45 all steel BG kit should be available soon, another local resident. Currently, I've run out of appropriate solder, I'm not sure how, the 210 will have to wait until new supplies arrive.

 

I thought the BT (6) - CL (3-4) was the dia 322 from the photo up thread, the one sprung on with such glee, by Andy Greenie of the Howards. I thought the BT (5) -CL (2-5) was ex GN? The GN twin was on the Pinxton run in 1950, as part of a larger set, with one of the Gresley bodied T(9) carriages with GC underframes  . One of the 210 twins was on this service after 54 with a single brake I seem recall.

Edited September 9, 2020 by Headstock

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, landscapes said:

Good Afternoon Tony

 

May I please ask your advice on a possible modification?

 

I have a Hornby K1 No 62024.

 

I am thinking of trying to convert it to the only K1/1 61997, at present I am only looking at photographs and have not gone down the route of purchasing an Isinglass Drawing of the class yet.

 

I can see the rear end of the tender side panels are slightly different and the seems to be some kind of box next to the cab steps on the drivers side thats not on the K1/1 and a few differences along the running plate either side of the boiler I have no idea what this equipment is called, sand boxes?.

 

Apart from that to the best of your knowledge are there any obvious issues that I have missed that would require further modifications to the K1.

 

I know there is a K4 kit available but I am considering this option as the K1/1 is very close to the K1 and I probably have more chance in getting to the moon than building a tender engine locomotive kit.

 

I hope you do not mind me asking.

 

Best Regards

 

David

I don't mind your asking at all David,

 

The biggest difference between the K1/1 and a K1 is the tender. The former had the smaller GS type (available from SE Finecast). 

 

On 'MacCailin' More, the front footplate dropped down in a curve to meet the buffer beam in typical Gresley fashion. The K1s had an 'open' front footplate arrangement; more utility. 

 

The basic external dimensions were much the same, though items like lubricators and sandbox fillers were in different positions. By the way, the box underneath the cab on a K1 housed the battery for the AWS system; never fitted to 61997. 

 

I don't have a picture in my collection of 61997 which I can post on here........

 

However, I can show the different tenders. 

 

 

The K1/1 towed this type of GS tender, the smaller one. 

 

 

Unlike the K1s which had the larger GS type. 

 

I scratch-built the K1/1 years ago, then sold it. It's pictured on page 18 of my book A Lifetime With Locomotives and Layouts. It's a print, so I can't post it on here. 

 

Jamieson used to do a kit for the K1/1. Did DMR make one as well?

 

I hope this helps.............

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

[Clem]

45 minutes ago, Headstock said:

thought the BT (6) - CL (3-4) was the dia 322 from the photo up thread, the one sprung on with such glee, by Andy Greenie of the Howards. I thought the BT (5) -CL (2-5) was ex GN? The GN twin was on the Pinxton run in 1950, as part of a larger set, with one of the Gresley bodied T(9) carriages with GC underframes  . One of the 210 twins was on this service after 54 with a single brake I seem recall.

Thanks Andrew. Senior moment with the first example. Yes of course it's the D322. I'd clocked it on table 89 but didn't clock it on 92. And yes, the second must be a GN218RR or should I say two of them as the consist was BT(5)-CL(2-5),T(10),CL(2-5)-BT(5). Presumably the T10 was a GC 60' matchboard? That train would certainly be an interesting build and great to have on the layout. If I remember correctly, the GN twins had top-lights on the windows and instead of vents on the doors. That certainly would be a challenge from Kirk kits!

I've checked out the Bill Bedford site and my direct link to the GC etches has ceased to work. It's only very recently stopped, though. Isn't he replacing all the GC stuff with 3-D or resin? They'll all presumably re-appear as 3-D versions eventually but personally I much prefer etched sides.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, ROY@34F said:

Sorry folks I even managed to get the wrong photo . This is my pro scale A3 . But I think I have managed to load  Happy Knight .

Good evening Roy,

 

I think the A3 picture you've posted is of a modified Hornby one.

 

This is your Pro-Scale one...........

 

 

 

As running on LB some years ago (it must be a while ago - the Bachmann Mk.1s still have their roof ribs!). 

 

It's one of the few fitted with a streamlined non-corridor tender. 

 

Speaking of tenders, I'm afraid your HAPPY KNIGHT has the incorrect type (as originally supplied by Wills - beading, turn-ins at the front and too wide; the fault of Roche). 

 

Here's the prototype........

 

 

At Grantham according to the notes, in 1958. However, how common were Stanier Fives at your depot? 

 

Note the incorrect right-facing BR lion on the tender.

 

Rob Kinsey and I built 60533 between us (from a Crownline kit, but with a DJH cast metal smokebox/boiler/firebox) for service on Stoke Summit...........

 

 

 

Note the rivets on the tender.

 

Ian Rathbone painted her. 

 

 

And it now sees regular use on Little Bytham (though this was taken a few years ago as well).

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Tony Wright
to add something

[landscapes]

19 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I don't mind your asking at all David,

 

The biggest difference between the K1/1 and a K1 is the tender. The former had the smaller GS type (available from SE Finecast). 

 

On 'MacCailin' More, the front footplate dropped down in a curve to meet the buffer beam in typical Gresley fashion. The K1s had an 'open' front footplate arrangement; more utility. 

 

The basic external dimensions were much the same, though items like lubricators and sandbox fillers were in different positions. By the way, the box underneath the cab on a K1 housed the battery for the AWS system; never fitted to 61997. 

 

I don't have a picture in my collection of 61997 which I can post on here........

 

However, I can show the different tenders. 

 

 

The K1/1 towed this type of GS tender, the smaller one. 

 

 

Unlike the K1s which had the larger GS type. 

 

I scratch-built the K1/1 years ago, then sold it. It's pictured on page 18 of my book A Lifetime With Locomotives and Layouts. It's a print, so I can't post it on here. 

 

Jamieson used to do a kit for the K1/1. Did DMR make one as well?

 

I hope this helps.............

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

Hi Tony

 

Many thanks for your reply it has been of great help, I may look at purchasing the tender and use the K1 loco only.

 

Regards

 

David

[Headstock]

44 minutes ago, Clem said:

Thanks Andrew. Senior moment with the first example. Yes of course it's the D322. I'd clocked it on table 89 but didn't clock it on 92. And yes, the second must be a GN218RR or should I say two of them as the consist was BT(5)-CL(2-5),T(10),CL(2-5)-BT(5). Presumably the T10 was a GC 60' matchboard? That train would certainly be an interesting build and great to have on the layout. If I remember correctly, the GN twins had top-lights on the windows and instead of vents on the doors. That certainly would be a challenge from Kirk kits!

I've checked out the Bill Bedford site and my direct link to the GC etches has ceased to work. It's only very recently stopped, though. Isn't he replacing all the GC stuff with 3-D or resin? They'll all presumably re-appear as 3-D versions eventually but personally I much prefer etched sides.

 

 

 

Bill has indicated that they may return as etches, I hope so but won't be holding my breath. There is some quite nice resin stuff but generally I don't feel it has the quality of etched brass. I will have to start making my own stuff. I found a nugget of solder this evening, So I attached the Solebars and headstocks to the CL, I had folded the solebars up last night, zapped the overlays into position and filed back the fold up angle. It's a beautiful top quality kit, the fold up lower angle is one of only two minor niggles I have with it. A big flat file took care of that.

Edited September 9, 2020 by Headstock
correct minor speed errors

[Jack P]

22 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Not bad for a southern modeller  

 

You're too kind Jesse  Speaking of Southern, here are a few other bits and pieces i've been working on.

 

SECR J from a Chivers kit

 

 

LBSC i3 from a SEF kit

 

 

SR W from a PDK kit - my first attempt at Walschaerts valve gear and my first use of gibson wheels

 

 

Finally a Hornby WC pacific modified with an original cab

 

 

The malachite isn't nearly as garish in reality as it is in the photos.

Edited September 9, 2020 by Jack P

[Tony Wright]

8 minutes ago, Jack P said:

 

You're too kind Jesse  Speaking of Southern, here are a few other bits and pieces i've been working on.

 

SECR J from a Chivers kit

 

 

LBSC i3 from a SEF kit

 

 

SR W from a PDK kit - my first attempt at Walschaerts valve gear and my first use of gibson wheels

 

 

Finally a modified Hornby WC pacific modified with an original cab

 

 

The malachite isn't nearly as garish in reality as it is in the photos.

Wonderful stuff!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

16 minutes ago, Jack P said:

 

 

The malachite isn't nearly as garish in reality as it is in the photos.

 

Good evening Jack P,

 

I Was hoping it was as garish as in the photo, it looks rather beautiful.

[Barry O]

2 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

That doesn't look like the Merlin that was running on the layout - that one has my frames and motion and the correct tender.

It isn't this was one which appeared from someone else who hadn't built a new chassis.. but it did have the number on it (no nameplates though).

Baz

[Barry O]

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Does the buyer of MERLIN know that it's got the wrong tender, Baz? 

 

For the period depicted, 60027 towed a 1935-style streamlined corridor tender (complete with extra strip at the bottom of the tank). She'd also lost her cabside worksplates by then.

 

Interestingly, I'm building SILVER KING for Carlisle.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

He is happy with it - he probably either doesn't know or doesn't care.. the Silver King depicted was from Carlisle but remained un changed as a 00 loco rather than being converted to EM.

 

Baz

[James Fitzjames]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I don't mind your asking at all David,

 

The biggest difference between the K1/1 and a K1 is the tender. The former had the smaller GS type (available from SE Finecast). 

 

On 'MacCailin' More, the front footplate dropped down in a curve to meet the buffer beam in typical Gresley fashion. The K1s had an 'open' front footplate arrangement; more utility. 

 

The basic external dimensions were much the same, though items like lubricators and sandbox fillers were in different positions. By the way, the box underneath the cab on a K1 housed the battery for the AWS system; never fitted to 61997. 

 

I don't have a picture in my collection of 61997 which I can post on here........

 

However, I can show the different tenders. 

 

 

The K1/1 towed this type of GS tender, the smaller one. 

 

 

Unlike the K1s which had the larger GS type. 

 

I scratch-built the K1/1 years ago, then sold it. It's pictured on page 18 of my book A Lifetime With Locomotives and Layouts. It's a print, so I can't post it on here. 

 

Jamieson used to do a kit for the K1/1. Did DMR make one as well?

 

I hope this helps.............

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

Sorry Tony, my Gaelic blood couldn't let ''MacCailin' More' pass; it should be 'MacCailin Mor': 'Descendent of Great Colin'. The LNER got it more wrong than yourself, however, managing 'MacCailein Mor' originally, hence their subsequent  renaming of 3442 as 'The Great Marquess'! DMR do a K1/1 kit via Precision.

Edited September 9, 2020 by James Fitzjames
To add something

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I don't mind your asking at all David,

 

The biggest difference between the K1/1 and a K1 is the tender. The former had the smaller GS type (available from SE Finecast). 

 

On 'MacCailin' More, the front footplate dropped down in a curve to meet the buffer beam in typical Gresley fashion. The K1s had an 'open' front footplate arrangement; more utility. 

 

The basic external dimensions were much the same, though items like lubricators and sandbox fillers were in different positions. By the way, the box underneath the cab on a K1 housed the battery for the AWS system; never fitted to 61997. 

 

I don't have a picture in my collection of 61997 which I can post on here........

 

However, I can show the different tenders. 

 

 

The K1/1 towed this type of GS tender, the smaller one. 

 

 

Unlike the K1s which had the larger GS type. 

 

I scratch-built the K1/1 years ago, then sold it. It's pictured on page 18 of my book A Lifetime With Locomotives and Layouts. It's a print, so I can't post it on here. 

 

Jamieson used to do a kit for the K1/1. Did DMR make one as well?

 

I hope this helps.............

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

not quite the right tender. The K1/1 had a variant of the 3,500 gallon GS tender, with the high front bulkhead and matching cut out as in the larger K1 tender. The SEF tender is not suitable but the correct tender is available from the former DMR range.

 

https://www.phoenix-paints.co.uk/products/dmr/dmrlnerloco/dmr-lnerloco-4mm/4r-t4a

[ScRSG]

On the matter of K4's etc. After the demise of Dave Alexander (RIP, Dave) does anyone else do a kit for the K4, or do we have to rely on the odd one turning up on you know where!

Chas

[TheSignalEngineer]

On 05/09/2020 at 19:54, Chuffer Davies said:

On 05/09/2020 at 18:16, Headstock said:

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?

Thanks Andrew,

 

I'll email you to discuss the inaccuracies of the kit in the hope that they can be corrected.  Whether or not we can then justify running it on Clayton is a different debate. 

A bit late for the time frame of Clayton but snippets that may be of use for others like me modelling in the in the 1950s in my case the Black Country. Despite the regular protestations that the Diagram 120 vans were for the GE Section they did manage to escape even before the days when NPCCS became common user vehicles.

Michael Harris included two pictures in his LNER Standard Gresley Carriages book, the first 70229 at Bulwell Common on a Nottingham Victoria to Mansfield train in 1947, the second 70221 at Easingwold branded 'On loan to Easingwold Light Railway' in 1957.

David Larkin used a later picture of 70217 at Shields Junction in 1962 in his General Parcels Rolling Stock booklet.

[Daniel W]

I mentioned a while back that I was starting on my first loco kit, a Judith Edge North British/Paxman shunter. Here is my progress so far. Thanks to my Poppy's Woodtech jig, the chassis is very free running. Alas, i had quite a hard time with the many different parts for the cab. I must have gone seriously wrong somewhere, since there is a noticable gap between the doorframe and the roof. My soldering is also typically filthy and in need of a good cleaning up, particularly on the back of the cab! Next job is the engine casing, but that will have to wait until work has slackened off again.

 

Daniel

[MarkC]

17 minutes ago, ScRSG said:

On the matter of K4's etc. After the demise of Dave Alexander (RIP, Dave) does anyone else do a kit for the K4, or do we have to rely on the odd one turning up on you know where!

Chas

You beat me to the info on the K4 kit, Chas.

 

I believe that I got the last K4 kit from Dave as he was winding down his business. As far as I know, nobody else presently makes a kit. There are stories doing the rounds that someone is hoping to resurrect some of Dave's range, but there is nothing definite yet, to my knowledge. One can only hope

 

Mark

 

 

[Chamby]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Didn't Hornby ever make the A3/streamlined non-corridor tender combination? 

 

 

Hornby's recent R3627, Flying Scotsman in post-nationalisation blue has one, tender 5640.

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

A bit late for the time frame of Clayton but snippets that may be of use for others like me modelling in the in the 1950s in my case the Black Country. Despite the regular protestations that the Diagram 120 vans were for the GE Section they did manage to escape even before the days when NPCCS became common user vehicles.

Michael Harris included two pictures in his LNER Standard Gresley Carriages book, the first 70229 at Bulwell Common on a Nottingham Victoria to Mansfield train in 1947, the second 70221 at Easingwold branded 'On loan to Easingwold Light Railway' in 1957.

David Larkin used a later picture of 70217 at Shields Junction in 1962 in his General Parcels Rolling Stock booklet.

 

Good evening TSE,

 

There was also one used on the Banbury motor circa 1939. It has already been noted that there was spread after their introduction,  millions of pages back it seems. A picture of one at Clayton in the mid 1930's, perhaps delivering pigeons to Heathcliff, would be more useful than anything post war.

 

The thing is, the LNER (and the LMS for that matter) had hundreds of more typical vans doing all the hard graft up and down the system. These hard workers, the backbone of the real railway,  mostly get ignored by the model railway community. The ex NER BZs for example, had a wider geographical spread in both LNER and BR days, they were still  hard at it in the swinging sixties and counted their number in the hundreds. The Thompson BZ were built in greater numbers than the dia 120 BY, yet  modelers show little interest in either. Why is the dia. 120 BY's so popular, that they have spawned so many dodgy models and are seen to be an essential  part of every LNER/ER layout, when they were actually built in comparatively small numbers? Why are they so popular, when the basic technical data of the real vans, is so poorly understood by the people modeling them? A catchy nickname?

 

There is a rather telling photograph posted on this thread. Two models standing side by side, yet from different manufactures , both are supposed to be dia 120 BY's but they look so different from one another Which one is right, if any?

 

They are such a bummer to capture as a reasonable model, that I praise the Gods of model railways, that I have never uncovered one of the little *******, in my own modeling neck of the woods.

Edited September 10, 2020 by Headstock
Make it pretty.

[polybear]

19 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Andy,

 

It's astonishing how the sums quickly add up. Add up to far more than expected.

 

When WMRC took out Stoke Summit and Charwelton to shows, both layouts were insured for over £100,000,00 each! We always thought that those were 'conservative' estimates. 

 

I think what had to be taken into account was, say, in the event of a total loss, what had to be calculated was how much would it cost to ask a team of (highly-experienced) modellers to recreate the whole lot, to the same standard, including all the locos/stock? Given that one or two in the team were professional model-makers - a lot! 

 

I'm sure it's the case that most modellers (even where they have insurance) hopelessly undervalue what they've got. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Hi Tony,

I recall speaking to Steffan Lewis (RIP) about his excellent layout "Maindee East Engine Shed" and the fact that I hadn't seen it exhibited for several years; it turned out that it had been damaged (in the trailer?) when returning from Scaleforum (?) one year.  The Insurance Company paid for it to be repaired by a professional modeller; however Steffan didn't feel the same about it anymore as it "wasn't all his work". 

[Tony Wright]

11 hours ago, James Fitzjames said:

Sorry Tony, my Gaelic blood couldn't let ''MacCailin' More' pass; it should be 'MacCailin Mor': 'Descendent of Great Colin'. The LNER got it more wrong than yourself, however, managing 'MacCailein Mor' originally, hence their subsequent  renaming of 3442 as 'The Great Marquess'! DMR do a K1/1 kit via Precision.

My most profound apologies, James.

 

As always, I should have taken my own advice and looked up the name first. Checking it up (in the RCTS) it seems to have an accent on the 'o' (something I can't reproduce). 

 

A descendant (note the spelling, please) of 'Great Colin'. Who (showing my ignorance) was he? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited September 10, 2020 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

11 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Tony,

 

not quite the right tender. The K1/1 had a variant of the 3,500 gallon GS tender, with the high front bulkhead and matching cut out as in the larger K1 tender. The SEF tender is not suitable but the correct tender is available from the former DMR range.

 

https://www.phoenix-paints.co.uk/products/dmr/dmrlnerloco/dmr-lnerloco-4mm/4r-t4a

Good morning Andrew,

 

Thank you. I should have been more specific, rather than generalising. 

 

I was going on the tender I scratch-built for THE GREAT MARQUESS, which was the same as the J38 one, which was also the same as the 3,500 gall GS one first attached to LOCH LONG as built. 

 

David would best buy the DMR tender for his conversion. 

 

The Jamieson K1/1 kit had the tender with the low frontplate and larger cut-out. 

 

A lesson learnt for me. Always conduct the most-thorough research!

 

The irony is, now looking at the picture in my book again, I had scratch-built the right tender for my 61997. I wonder where the loco is now? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[micklner]

Dearer but a much better kit of the 3500 Tender

 

https://traders.scalefour.org/DaveBradwell/locos-tenders/

[Michael Edge]

9 hours ago, Daniel W said:

I mentioned a while back that I was starting on my first loco kit, a Judith Edge North British/Paxman shunter. Here is my progress so far. Thanks to my Poppy's Woodtech jig, the chassis is very free running. Alas, i had quite a hard time with the many different parts for the cab. I must have gone seriously wrong somewhere, since there is a noticable gap between the doorframe and the roof. My soldering is also typically filthy and in need of a good cleaning up, particularly on the back of the cab! Next job is the engine casing, but that will have to wait until work has slackened off again.

 

Daniel

It's difficult to work out what's gone wrong but I suggest you take the cab roof off again and file the cab ends (it might just be the back in fact) down a bit until the gap disappears.

[micklner]

8 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening TSE,

 

There was also one used on the Banbury motor circa 1939. It has already been noted that there was spread after their introduction,  millions of pages back it seems. A picture of one at Clayton in the mid 1930's, perhaps delivering pigeons to Heathcliff, would be more useful than anything post war.

 

The thing is, the LNER (and the LMS for that matter) had hundreds of more typical vans doing all the hard graft up and down the system. These hard workers, the backbone of the real railway,  mostly get ignored by the model railway community. The ex NER BZs for example, had a wider geographical spread in both LNER and BR days, they were still  hard at it in the swinging sixties and counted their number in the hundreds. The Thompson BZ were built in greater numbers than the dia 120 BY, yet  modelers show little interest in either. Why is the dia. 120 BY's so popular, that they have spawned so many dodgy models and are seen to be an essential  part of every LNER/ER layout, when they were actually built in comparatively small numbers? Why are they so popular, when the basic technical data of the real vans, is so poorly understood by the people modeling them? A catchy nickname?

 

There is a rather telling photograph posted on this thread. Two models standing side by side, yet from different manufactures , both are supposed to be dia 120 BY's but they look so different from one another Which one is right, if any?

 

They are such a bummer to capture as a reasonable model, that I praise the Gods of model railways, that I have never uncovered one of the little *******, in my own modeling neck of the woods.

 

 

Pigeon Van  a cheap plastic kit available would be a probable reason, not many people worry about total realism on their railways.

 

 

My Chivers version with new handrails it need a a thinner stepboard made. The  painted roofline is straight, I presume flashlight effect/bounce.