Wright writes.....

[Iain.d]

This is the only Kirk LNER origin carriage that I have. Originally constructed in 1991, its been slightly updated with MJT bogies and scratch built underframe, MJT vents and a few other details added.  I think from previous discussion on this thread, a few hundred pages or so back, I have the change from carmine to cream at the wrong height. I think it’s too high? I’m not sure the number is right for this diagram - I have the Harris LNER Carriages book and will need to check. But I’m not going to change either now. 

 

 

I have plenty of Kirk Southern Region Maunsell’s (at least 20) and while they’re not a match for the Hornby or Roxey Mouldings, I’m still happy with them. I think we would be so much poorer without them. This one has also been updated with MJT bogies, scratch built underframes and so on. 

 

 

Both of these were rebuilt and repainted in the early 2000s. The move to Australia was not kind to much of what I had built and collected and some is still to be repaired.  I was somewhat dismayed to watch the removalist’s playing catch with some of the boxes containing my railway stock between the container and the house....

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

 

Edited November 18, 2020 by Iain.d
To add something

[thegreenhowards]

26 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

It looks splendid, Andrew; as it might well have done before.

 

I, too, have whittled down any surviving Kirkies to the odd one or two, but I think the contribution Ian Kirk made to the hobby should not be underestimated. For blokes like me (and blokettes) who model the ex-LNER/BR/ER, his carriage kits were a Godsend, enabling all sorts of different Gresley types to be built (at the time when any RTR offerings were ghastly).

 

Of course, they've now been superseded, but (especially in teak) they can still produce excellent 'layout' coaches. Several of the cars running on Grantham are Kirk derivatives, and look most-convincing. 

 

This is one 'survivor' I still possess.

 

 

 

I offer little but 'apologies' for illustrating this in response to the Gresleys you produce, but as a 'layout' coach in the truest sense (in a rake of a dozen or more), as it bowls by at speed it offers a 'reasonable' impression; in body profile, superior to the current RTR equivalents.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony,

 

As you say a good layout coach - I have many examples (20+), more than 50% of D.155, the end vestibule SK as above,  which, as you know,  was very common on the ECML and is not available RTR.

 

However to say that this is superior to the current RTR Gresleys is ridiculous IMHO. I know we’ve been here before but that is a very ‘glass half empty’ attitude. The Kirk has one big advantage over the Hornby coaches - the turnunder. I believe there’s also something about the beading but I’ve never really understood that. Side on like this coach, the turnunder is irrelevant. But I can see the lack of commode handles, alarm gear, destination brackets, a decent battery box and flush glazing. On most Kirk’s I would add that the paint job is inferior to Hornby’s but yours is very good. Many of those defects are fixeable with time, cost and effort but the flush glazing would be hard and probably not worth it. My Kirk’s range from missing all that extra detail to having all but the flush glazing rectified depending on when I bought/ built them and whether I’ve found the time. 

 

To me the glazing alone outweighs the relatively minor defects on the Hornby coach. The Hornbys have lots of good fine detail and a very good paint finish - much better than I can achieve.

 

So my rule of Gresleys is:

1. Hornby if they do the diagram I want (rare);

2. Brass kit/ sides on Hornby donor when I can find the time to build it; and

3. Kirk as a very reasonable substitute in the meantime or to use when brass sides are unavailable.

 

Sorry to be controversial butI know you like a bit of debate - I now expect a torrent of abuse!

 

ATB

 

Andy

 

 

 

[jollysmart]

18 minutes ago, PupCam said:

That's excellent!  I love devious solutions to problems and wasn't thinking along those lines.   I've built a couple of very small R/C cars in the past, many years ago when the technology just wasn't there (we are very fortunate today) but they weren't 4mm/ft shunting tractor small by a long way!

 

But now ...... I'm not so sure 

 

It's 2mm on a 2mm FS layout so even tinier and it is very impressive to watch although shunting with it is not so easy to do,  although Laurie just makes it look simple.

[thegreenhowards]

As it seems to be ‘show your Kirk’ day, I present a couple of my favourites.

 

The first is a T-F twin. I bought this half built to P4 standards including a lovely MJT Underpinnings. I just rewheeled it, finished it off and painted it. I then used CCT’s Gresley articulated transfer sheet To number it (I helped him develop this when I couldn’t face numbering my whole quad art from Modelmaster sheets).

 

 

And this is an example of my favourite use of Kirks - cut ‘n’ shutting. A 66’ sleeping car built from two of his 61’ sleeping cars. This is one of my later builds with MJT underpinnings and Isinglass HD bogies.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2020 by thegreenhowards
Grammar!

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

the contribution Ian Kirk made to the hobby should not be underestimated.

Another godsend - his china-clay wagons came on to the market at just the right time for the first St Enodoc layout in the late 1970s. They're still in service today.

[Woodcock29]

Totally agree about the contribution from Kirk. I bought my first basic non-gangwayed kits just after I got married in 1978. Over the next decade I built about 24 from memory including the triple restaurant which ran initially on my Dad's layout. All except one buffet car are out on my current layout. I've not finished one since the 80s but did start building a couple 20 years ago to demonstrate painting teak at our 2000 BRMA Convention here in Adelaide but never finished them. Probably won't as I have a heap of brass kits to build now.

As of midnight tonight we'll be in a 6 day total lockdown (other than one person/day allowed out for food shopping), after a new Covid cluster outbreak last weekend which came from a quarantine hotel. Seems to be a new strain from the UK! Plenty of modelling time though!

Andrew

Edited November 18, 2020 by Woodcock29
Grammar

[St Enodoc]

8 minutes ago, Woodcock29 said:

Totally agree about the contribution from Kirk. I bought my first basic non-gangwayed kits just after I got married in 1978. Over the next decade I built about 24 from memory including the triple restaurant which ran initially on my Dad's layout. All except one buffet car are out on my current layout. I've not finished one since the 80s but did start building a couple 20 years ago to demonstrate painting teak at our 2000 BRMA Convention here in Adelaide but never finished them. Probably won't as I have a heap of brass kits to build now.

As of midnight tonight we'll be in a 6 day total lockdown (other than one person/day allowed out for food shopping), after a new Covid cluster outbreak last weekend which came from a quarantine hotel. Seems to be a new strain from the UK! Plenty of modelling time though!

Andrew

Get some scenery done...

[t-b-g]

If you do three main "jobs" to a Kirk LNER carriage kit, you can transform it.

 

One is to sort out the curve of the roof profile on those types of roof. The plastic is thick enough that you can sand/file it into a better shape. The second is to inlay rectangles of plastic into the "solid" panels to reduce the apparent thickness of the panelling. The third is to flush glaze them.

 

Once those are done, plus some improved detailing, they can make very decent models. Malcolm did quite a few for Thompson's End, including a rake of 8 or 9 corridor carriages for when it was altered to be a continuous run. He often got asked whose kits they were and people were very surprised when he said "Kirk" as the origin was very hard to determine. 

[Woodcock29]

I did modify the domed ends of gangwayed roofs but never tried reducing the thickness of upper panels or flushglazing. I improved angle iron underframes. I did fit truss rod underframes to some and vacuum reservoirs, handrails of course. Never bothered with metal bogies but should have on the triplet (have bogies for that now). I made a Dia 120 from the 51' brake and shortened 8'6" bogies to 8' for a full brake. All good fun at the time.

Scenery! Did someone mention that? You'll have to wait and see!

Andrew

[31A]

Talking of Kirk coach kits, here's a Corridor Third I did many years ago for my "LNER Period":

 

 

I did inlay the upper panels on this one, 10 thou Plastikard I seem to recall, and it has MJT gangways and metal torpedo vents.  Not sure where the buffers came from (possibly the brass ones included in the kit cut down to 'retracted' length), and I think I made new battery boxes from Plastikard.

 

I agree with what others have said, the Kirk kits were a Godsend in their day.

 

[Headstock]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

It looks splendid, Andrew; as it might well have done before.

 

I, too, have whittled down any surviving Kirkies to the odd one or two, but I think the contribution Ian Kirk made to the hobby should not be underestimated. For blokes like me (and blokettes) who model the ex-LNER/BR/ER, his carriage kits were a Godsend, enabling all sorts of different Gresley types to be built (at the time when any RTR offerings were ghastly).

 

Of course, they've now been superseded, but (especially in teak) they can still produce excellent 'layout' coaches. Several of the cars running on Grantham are Kirk derivatives, and look most-convincing. 

 

This is one 'survivor' I still possess.

 

 

 

I offer little but 'apologies' for illustrating this in response to the Gresleys you produce, but as a 'layout' coach in the truest sense (in a rake of a dozen or more), as it bowls by at speed it offers a 'reasonable' impression; in body profile, superior to the current RTR equivalents.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good morning Tony,

 

I quite agree, the Kirk kits hold a special place in model railway history. It is a shame that there isn't an equivalent simple way into carriage construction today but with more fidelity to the prototype. At the end of the day, I try to get my Gresley's to look like they were built by the LNER, rather than being identified by which model railway kit or RTR manufacturer produced them. I have always had the problem, that  however much I wish away problems, when things are  bowling along at speed and at a distance, it doesn't stop me noticing them at a foot away when working at the bench.

 

2 hours ago, gr.king said:

 

I wouldn't describe the prospect as "awesome", although it might be advantageous, if cosmetic results are the overriding consideration, but the permanently retracted buffer has practical advantages. When combined with either a centre coupling with a propelling facility, and / or soft springy corridor connectors with smooth flat end plates, close coupling can be maintained without risk of buffer locking, even if the adjacent piece of rolling stock has long buffers.

 

Good morning  Graham,

 

the buffers would be retracted within a rake of Gresley gangway carriages, that would be cosmetically and prototypically correct. Why would I want to make that otherwise? However, you are not accounting for the locomotive,* were the buffers on the leading carriage would be extended on the prototype and your thoughts on propelling wouldn't quite work in the same way.

 

* notable exceptions excluded.

 

2 hours ago, Iain.d said:

This is the only Kirk LNER origin carriage that I have. Originally constructed in 1991, its been slightly updated with MJT bogies and scratch built underframe, MJT vents and a few other details added.  I think from previous discussion on this thread, a few hundred pages or so back, I have the change from carmine to cream at the wrong height. I think it’s too high? I’m not sure the number is right for this diagram - I have the Harris LNER Carriages book and will need to check. But I’m not going to change either now. 

 

 

Good morning Ian.d,

It is impossible to get Crimson and cream at the right height on a Kirk Gresley. The sides are not the right height to start with, and the proportions of the window depth to the lower panel size is way off. I wouldn't worry about it.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Headstock
add t add *

[Michael Edge]

I put this on the Judith Edge kits thread but it might be worth repeating here.

We have some LNER V4 etches available now, price is £51.50 including postage. Mouldings for the chimney and dome are included.

[Bucoops]

3 hours ago, gr.king said:

 

I wouldn't describe the prospect as "awesome", although it might be advantageous, if cosmetic results are the overriding consideration, but the permanently retracted buffer has practical advantages. When combined with either a centre coupling with a propelling facility, and / or soft springy corridor connectors with smooth flat end plates, close coupling can be maintained without risk of buffer locking, even if the adjacent piece of rolling stock has long buffers.

For stock that would have the buffers extended (so as Andrew mentions - full brakes and end of rakes) I have opted to use the Markits sprung buffers. For mid-rake retracted ones, then the MJT ones.

 

I have also opted to use Kadees so mid-rake sort of prototypical but end of rake not so much

[Steven B]

There's a video of the 2FS shunting tractor on YouTube:

 

Steven B.

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Tony,

 

As you say a good layout coach - I have many examples (20+), more than 50% of D.155, the end vestibule SK as above,  which, as you know,  was very common on the ECML and is not available RTR.

 

However to say that this is superior to the current RTR Gresleys is ridiculous IMHO. I know we’ve been here before but that is a very ‘glass half empty’ attitude. The Kirk has one big advantage over the Hornby coaches - the turnunder. I believe there’s also something about the beading but I’ve never really understood that. Side on like this coach, the turnunder is irrelevant. But I can see the lack of commode handles, alarm gear, destination brackets, a decent battery box and flush glazing. On most Kirk’s I would add that the paint job is inferior to Hornby’s but yours is very good. Many of those defects are fixeable with time, cost and effort but the flush glazing would be hard and probably not worth it. My Kirk’s range from missing all that extra detail to having all but the flush glazing rectified depending on when I bought/ built them and whether I’ve found the time. 

 

To me the glazing alone outweighs the relatively minor defects on the Hornby coach. The Hornbys have lots of good fine detail and a very good paint finish - much better than I can achieve.

 

So my rule of Gresleys is:

1. Hornby if they do the diagram I want (rare);

2. Brass kit/ sides on Hornby donor when I can find the time to build it; and

3. Kirk as a very reasonable substitute in the meantime or to use when brass sides are unavailable.

 

Sorry to be controversial butI know you like a bit of debate - I now expect a torrent of abuse!

 

ATB

 

Andy

 

 

 

A torrent of abuse?

 

'the relatively minor defects on the Hornby coach.'

 

Really, Andy? 

 

If the defects are that minor, why is there not one Hornby gangwayed Gresley on Little Bytham (except as donors, and a couple on the M&GNR bit)? I know I'm an advocate of building things, but I'm also not daft. Why are there just a few on Peterborough North (and then almost by apology)? Or on Retford? These three ECML layouts require hundreds of gangwayed Gresleys, but among the builders/owners they're just too wrong to use. 

 

 

This is a scene on Gilbert Barnatt's previous 'Peterborough' (I built the loco - but did NOT fit the lamps - and Ian Rathbone painted it). One can festoon any model carriage with all sorts of detail appurtenances, but if the basic body shape is so wrong, why bother? It's with reference to this basic body shape why I consider the Kirk to be superior to Hornby's (my observation was qualified). Where's the turn-in at the bottom of the bodyside? Why is the lower bodyside horizontal beading so high up? It makes the division line between the carmine/cream nonsense. 

 

 

I moved the pair of Hornby Gresleys 'down below' to give a suitable load for Jess Sim's Klondike. 

 

In tight perspective, the bodysides are almost flat, and the solebars are at least a mil' and a half too far out. At no point in end view on a real gangwayed Gresley is any part of the side vertical. 

 

Such a shame. Had the Hornby gangwayed Gresleys been anywhere near the correct profile, I'd have saved myself hours and hours of work!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

  

[Headstock]

7 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

 

To me the glazing alone outweighs the relatively minor defects on the Hornby coach.

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

 

Sorry to be controversial butI know you like a bit of debate - I now expect a torrent of abuse!

 

 

 

[Laurie2mil]

Thank you for the kind comments about the shunting tractor.  As Tony (Gee) said, it has metamorphosed into something more like an old Fordson industrial, similar to that which shunted at Battersea pre-war:

 

 

It's still slightly overscale, but it's already been a 10-year divertissement from the main layout and I didn't want to spend more time just now re-making the chassis (for a 4th time).

 

Re the subterranean mechanism that drives it - do you really want to go there??  Underneath the sheet of 2mm pcb it's all a very Heath-Robinson concoction of magnets, tubes, O-rings, gears, shafts, studding, motors, wires, belts, pulleys, motors and lumps of brass, all held together by pretty 3rd-rate carpentry with lots of PVA. 

 

The wagon turntables have to be </=3.5mm deep so the magnetic tractor drive will operate across them, and are operated by wire-in-tube:

 

 

It's not that bad to drive!  The steering wheel requires some mirror-imaging and a good right-brain, but the joystick is intuitive and by far the most useful.  It does need concentration though . . .

 

If anyone is interested to know more about the under-gubbins, please message me directly and I'll be happy to send you more info - but I don't think it's reasonable to clutter up Tony's pages with it here.

 

Laurie Adams

 

PS The YouTube videos are very noisy: since they were made, the drives have been re-motored and re-geared and are much quieter now. 

[robertcwp]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

A torrent of abuse?

 

'the relatively minor defects on the Hornby coach.'

 

Really, Andy? 

 

If the defects are that minor, why is there not one Hornby gangwayed Gresley on Little Bytham (except as donors, and a couple on the M&GNR bit)? I know I'm an advocate of building things, but I'm also not daft. Why are there just a few on Peterborough North (and then almost by apology)? Or on Retford? These three ECML layouts require hundreds of gangwayed Gresleys, but among the builders/owners they're just too wrong to use. 

 

 

  

There are a few Hornby Gresley gangwayed carriages on Retford, but not many. From memory, there is a BCK in the Newcastle-King's Cross set that includes the Silver Jubilee triplet and a full brake in a parcels train. There are a couple in a scratch set on the GC section which has been made up from spare carriages. A maroon SK (with awful Hornby lining) is a Hornby body on what appears to be a Comet underframe. 

 

There are not huge numbers of Gresley carriages on Retford, and certainly not hundreds but there are enough on the GN side. The GC side could probably take a few more and there is certainly room for more non-passenger stock such as full brakes and assorted vans. 

 

I compared a Hornby Gresley RB to the kit-built one in the boat train. There is a clear difference in profile and in the solebars but putting them side-by-side the thing that was most noticeable was the beading in the wrong place on the Hornby one, which I think Hornby may have corrected. The bigger issue with the RB in the boat train is that it's the wrong diagram for the train but there is I believe no kit for the correct one, as discussed a while back on this thread.

[PupCam]

2 hours ago, Laurie2mil said:

Thank you for the kind comments about the shunting tractor.  As Tony (Gee) said, it has metamorphosed into something more like an old Fordson industrial, similar to that which shunted at Battersea pre-war:

 

 

It's still slightly overscale, but it's already been a 10-year divertissement from the main layout and I didn't want to spend more time just now re-making the chassis (for a 4th time).

 

Re the subterranean mechanism that drives it - do you really want to go there??  Underneath the sheet of 2mm pcb it's all a very Heath-Robinson concoction of magnets, tubes, O-rings, gears, shafts, studding, motors, wires, belts, pulleys, motors and lumps of brass, all held together by pretty 3rd-rate carpentry with lots of PVA. 

 

The wagon turntables have to be </=3.5mm deep so the magnetic tractor drive will operate across them, and are operated by wire-in-tube:

 

 

It's not that bad to drive!  The steering wheel requires some mirror-imaging and a good right-brain, but the joystick is intuitive and by far the most useful.  It does need concentration though . . .

 

If anyone is interested to know more about the under-gubbins, please message me directly and I'll be happy to send you more info - but I don't think it's reasonable to clutter up Tony's pages with it here.

 

Laurie Adams

 

PS The YouTube videos are very noisy: since they were made, the drives have been re-motored and re-geared and are much quieter now. 

Absolutely brilliant Laurie, PM sent. 

 

I have a confession to make - I've only just twigged that its 2mm not 4mm which makes it even more remarkable!

 

Alan

[Chas Levin]

12 hours ago, Bucoops said:

 

If it's of interest I found that it was quite easy to fit the "universal" one to D&S bogies.

 

Thanks Rich - it is inded of interest and that's the sort of thing that came to mind as soon as I saw them. So pleased: I know tension locks are not popular with everyone (not least of course Mr Wright of this thread ) but I'm wedded to them (coupled to them, in fact!) and attaching plastic bits to etched kits is never a stage I look forward to - I worry about achieving a really good long-term bond between the materials so a soldered solution is heaven-sent!

[Chas Levin]

10 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

...a new Covid cluster outbreak last weekend which came from a quarantine hotel. Seems to be a new strain from the UK!

Sorry about that Andrew

 

(Chas, in the UK)

[gr.king]

22 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

 

 

Good morning  Graham,

 

, you are not accounting for the locomotive,* were the buffers on the leading carriage would be extended on the prototype and your thoughts on propelling wouldn't quite work in the same way.

 

* notable exceptions excluded.

 

Au contraire...

 

I had exactly that sort of situation very much in mind, pointing out that unless appearance overrides all other considerations, then there is  practical value in having shortened buffers on at least one of the two adjacent closely-coupled vehicle (especially in conjunction with a coupling or gangway that stops the gap from closing up to zero.

In a purely practical sense, in these situations it doesn't matter a jot whether the model buffers are doing (or look as if they are doing) what the rules of the full-size real railway said that they must.

[Headstock]

39 minutes ago, gr.king said:

 

Au contraire...

 

I had exactly that sort of situation very much in mind, pointing out that unless appearance overrides all other considerations, then there is  practical value in having shortened buffers on at least one of the two adjacent closely-coupled vehicle (especially in conjunction with a coupling or gangway that stops the gap from closing up to zero.

In a purely practical sense, in these situations it doesn't matter a jot whether the model buffers are doing (or look as if they are doing) what the rules of the full-size real railway said that they must.

 

Good morning Graham,

 

Appearance is king in my book, it is intrinsic to all other considerations. Weather that be a smooth running locomotive, a sweeping curve, or the representation of a babbling brook. The technical and practical aspects of model railways are always there to support the aesthetics. It is probably why DCC sound is of little interest to myself. 

 

Retracted buffers are not necessary, either technically of practically, in the situation that you are referring to, I personally wouldn't wish to compromise the aesthetics or the prototype.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Headstock
delete extra letter.

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Graham,

 

Appearance is king in my book, it is intrinsic to all other considerations. Weather that be a smooth running locomotive, a sweeping curve, or the representation of a babbling brook. The technical and practical aspects of model railways are always there to support the aesthetics. It is probably why DCC sound is of little interest to myself. 

 

Retracted buffers are not necessary, either technically of practically, in the situation that you are referring to, I personally wouldn't wish to compromise the aesthetics or the prototype.

Good afternoon Andrew,

 

If appearance is 'king', why model in 'narrow gauge'? Surely OO is the monarch of nothing when it comes to appearance? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[MikeParkin65]

6 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Graham,

 

Appearance is king in my book, it is intrinsic to all other considerations. Weather that be a smooth running locomotive, a sweeping curve, or the representation of a babbling brook. The technical and practical aspects of model railways are always there to support the aesthetics. It is probably why DCC sound is of little interest to myself. 

 

Retracted buffers are not necessary, either technically of practically, in the situation that you are referring to, I personally wouldn't wish to compromise the aesthetics or the prototype.

Talking about jarring aesthetics that misplaced 'weather' stands out like a sore thumb!

Edited November 19, 2020 by MikeParkin65