GWR Toplights Poll

[Miss Prism]

• extra capacity engaged

some gwr.org livery pages given a quick revamp

need to do more livery drawings (gawd help any prospective RTR Toplight manufacturer!)

need lots more pictures

trying to work out what the makeup of the 1922 CRE might have been (Toplights, I assume, but it could be Dreadnoughts as well)

must stop reading this thread, too much fun

must complete a transmission diagram tonight for the Snooze

[Neal Ball]

Thanks to everyone for today's comments.

 

Clearwater, your comments earlier are fine thank you.

 

I can't remember who asked, so apologies. To introduce myself, I am a GWR modeller, interested in new carriages, new GWR rolling stock etc. And if that means we can get some healthy debate going that is good. I am not affiliated to any manufacturer, or the Poll group on here.

 

We are currently on 78 votes by members of RMweb, thanks to everyone who has voted so far.

 

Regards, Neal.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Neal Ball

[BMacdermott]

Hello Neal

 

Just Like The Real Thing (the 0 gauge people) list the following diagrams as kits. Maybe there's some mileage is asking them why they chose those diagrams?

 

C31, D47, E83, E85, E93.

 

Brian

[martinT]

• trying to work out what the makeup of the 1922 CRE might have been (Toplights, I assume, but it could be Dreadnoughts as well)

 

See https://mikemorant.smugmug.com/Trains-Railways-British-Isles/GWR-and-BRW/GWR-other-tender-engines/i-NPt46RR/A

this is thought to be the CRE approaching Marazion c1925. Certainly the make-up is correct: Van 3rd, 3rd, Compo, Diner, Van 3rd, all 70ft vehicles, which is as specified for the CRE in the GW's official 'Programme of Working of Coaches in Through trains' for the summer of 1925.

Apart from the Dreadnought Diner all coaches are steel-paneled Toplights.

Martin

Edited January 12, 2017 by martinT

[trevor7598]

I am sure you'll get your Toplights one day.

Now that many of the ' Big four ', coaches have been produced in RTR, there is only one way

for the likes of Bachmann and Hornby to go, and that is further back in time.

 

This has already started, Hornby, with the LSW rebuilds, and Bachmann with the Birdcages.

If these ventures are well supported, and not left on shop shelves, I am sure more pre- group

designs will appear.

 

Largely due to the second world war many coaches of pre-group origin had very long lives,

and from a manufacturers point of view, lots of liveries as a result, and maximum value

from that expensive tooling.

[Edwardian]

Vote for 70 footers and Speed to the West!

[coachmann]

Hello Neal

 

Just Like The Real Thing (the 0 gauge people) list the following diagrams as kits. Maybe there's some mileage is asking them why they chose those diagrams?

 

C31, D47, E83, E85, E93.

I model in 0 gauge but I cannot use any of the JLTRT 'Toplights' because they represent the older panelled stock built before 1914. Add a 40 year life and they were getting slim on the ground by 1954. For 1957 I require the later built 'Toplights' of Bars III steel clad type. I have only mentioned this seeing as it could affect quite a few modellers unaware of a coach's lifespan. The withdrawal dates quoted in Russell's books look extremely generous to me. Even Collett's 1924-30 stock was being withdrawn by 1962, much of it still in blood & custard. 

 

 

Regarding restrctions on 70' coaches, these could be for sharp curves, clearances, point locking bars and so-forth. Nonetheless, they did get around onto other regions. The odd-balls were te so-called South Wales stock which were built during experiments with buck-eye couplings and wider corridor connections. Some had a flat and and a bow end and so couplings would have been a factor. 

Edited January 13, 2017 by coachmann

[HowardGWR]

See https://mikemorant.smugmug.com/Trains-Railways-British-Isles/GWR-and-BRW/GWR-other-tender-engines/i-NPt46RR/A

this is thought to be the CRE approaching Marazion c1925. Certainly the make-up is correct: Van 3rd, 3rd, Compo, Diner, Van 3rd, all 70ft vehicles, which is as specified for the CRE in the GW's official 'Programme of Working of Coaches in Through trains' for the summer of 1925.

Apart from the Dreadnought Diner all coaches are steel-paneled Toplights.

Martin

That last sentence of yours raises one big difficulty with this range of coaches for an RTR manufacturer.  To appeal to 'people who know' as opposed to the 'average modeller' it will be a poser as to what should be offered.  As the latter group outnumber the enthusiasts on here by about 10,000 to 1, perhaps it's not so important.  Perhaps an 'easy kit' could be offered, thus standard no panelling with the panelling offered as stick_ons to the steel version, thus allowing part panelling, full panelling or no panelling.

 

It's easier to stick stuff on or to fill holes than it is to get unwanted protrusions off.   See the faulty Railroad D95 guard's compartment.

[Coach bogie]

Perhaps an 'easy kit' could be offered,

Define easy!

 

Easy to me is seen as very difficult to some of my friends and then I find some kits other have built impossible and sell on.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[BMacdermott]

I model in 0 gauge but I cannot use any of the JLTRT 'Toplights' because they represent the older panelled stock built before 1914. Add a 40 year life and they were getting slim on the ground by 1954. For 1957 I require the later built 'Toplights' of Bars III steel clad type. I have only mentioned this seeing as it could affect quite a few modellers unaware of a coach's lifespan. The withdrawal dates quoted in Russell's books look extremely generous to me. Even Collett's 1924-30 stock was being withdrawn by 1962, much of it still in blood & custard. 

 

Thanks coachmann

 

This may have some bearing on why we in The Poll Team came to the conclusion that C35, D56 an E98/E103 might suit many (as noted in an earlier posting) - but I am just awaiting an update from John Lewis and will report back.

 

It certainly is a complex subject and would like to thank Neal for raising it. By gathering info from a wide range of contributors, I'm sure the end result of this thread will be very useful in sorting out much of what isn't likely.

 

Brian

Edited January 13, 2017 by BMacdermott

[Miss Prism]

Howard - the primary focus of this thread is RTR. 'Stickon' panelling to a steel-sided is a non-starter. There are a bewildering array of etched things already available, and, notwithstanding the awful situation at Coopercraft, the excellent Slaters plastic kits.

[coachmann]

For a ready-to-run range of GWR 'Toplight' coaches, I would suggest the following :-

 

Bars III (sleet sided) corridor brake composite.

Bars III (steel sided) corridor third

Bars I or II (wood panelled) corridor brake third.

Bars i or II (  "             "      ) corridor third.

Bars I or II (  "            "       ) corridor composite.

 

Five coaches isn't out of court when I think LMS Porthole and Gresley coaches were around this number. They cover the start of the Toplight construction to virtually the end in 1923 and so cover the earliest GWR use to final withdrawal by BR.

 

Two Trussrod 'pods' are required for the earlier rod & queenpost and later angle trussing.

Battery boxes are standard throughout the range but in differing positions. Brake third batteries were often at one end only.

Two different ends required. Panelled for Bars I & II; flush for Bars III

 

I hope pre-group collectors realise their coaches will be either brown or maroon fully lined out....Not chocolate & cream.  I rather suspect they don't, and so it might be more commercial to forget pre-grouping and apply 1922-28 full panelled chocolate and cream in its place and simply do a short run in 1912-22 panelled maroon livery at a premium price. The simple livery adopted from 1928 until early war years should be roundel livery. Why? Becasue the roundel is relatively easy to remove and replace with the 1928-35 twin cities shield totem. Forget post-war livery....It barely got going on older stock before the railway were Nationalized. That only leaves BR blood & custard. For BR maroon, think hens teeth.

Edited January 13, 2017 by coachmann

[NCB]

Hello Neal

 

Below is an extract from The Guide to The Wishlist Poll 2016. I notice none of those are in your list.

 

Brian

 

The Toplight vehicles were altered considerably over the years, which would make the choice for a manufacturer very difficult. The Poll Team has discussed the matter at length and feels that the following 57ft steel-panelled coaches with rigid angle trusses (and the Diag.K22 PBV in the category Non-passenger-carrying Coaching Stock) would suit most modellers:

Diag.C35 Third

Diag.D56 Brake Third

Diags.E98 or E103 Composites.

 

I'd go along with the above, for several reasons. As toplights go these are amongst the cleaner (ie simpler) designs. It is possible that the rigid angle trusses are identical to those used by the subsequent Collets and could result in a saving on tooling, and even if not would be simpler than some of the toplight underframes. Yet with things like toplights and curved grab handles they remain quite distinctive and attractive coaches, looking noticably different from Collett's designs (I say from Collett's designs, but it's quite possible he had a hand in the later toplights).

 

Incidentally, D56 (left and right hand versions) and E98 are available from Worsley Works. I've attached a pic of a D56 I've built in 3mm/ft from Worsley sides and ends.

 

[BMacdermott]

For a ready-to-run range of GWR 'Toplight' coaches, I would suggest the following :-

 

Bars III (sleet sided) corridor brake composite.

Bars III (steel sided) corridor third

Bars I or II (wood panelled) corridor brake third.

Bars i or II (  "             "      ) corridor third.

Bars I or II (  "            "       ) corridor composite.

 

Hello coachmann

 

Many thanks for that. Could I trouble you for diagram numbers, please?

 

Brian

Edited January 14, 2017 by BMacdermott

[81C]

Hello 81C

 

I'll have a word with The Poll Team's 'GWR man', John Lewis. Bear with me - it might take a day or two to get a reply here.

 

Brian

Hi Brian how are you getting on with my request.

Regards 

[BMacdermott]

Hello 81C

 

Just awaiting a reply from John.

 

Brian

[Neal Ball]

Hello Neal

 

Below is an extract from The Guide to The Wishlist Poll 2016. I notice none of those are in your list.

 

Brian

 

The Toplight vehicles were altered considerably over the years, which would make the choice for a manufacturer very difficult. The Poll Team has discussed the matter at length and feels that the following 57ft steel-panelled coaches with rigid angle trusses (and the Diag.K22 PBV in the category Non-passenger-carrying Coaching Stock) would suit most modellers:

Diag.C35 Third

Diag.D56 Brake Third

Diags.E98 or E103 Composites.

 

 

Been a busy week at work!

 

I have added Brian's suggestions onto the Poll. As before, if you have already voted you will need to delete your vote and start over again to add these onto your wishlist.

 

Thanks to everyone who has voted so far.

Neal.

[Miss Prism]

Just a note of caution on the many 3rds and Brake 3rds converted for Ambulance use in WWI. Some were not rebuilt (when returned from the war) to their original condition. See, e.g.: 

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrt3031.htm

[Neal Ball]

 

Just a note of caution on the many 3rds and Brake 3rds converted for Ambulance use in WWI. Some were not rebuilt (when returned from the war) to their original condition. See, e.g.: 

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrt3031.htm

 

 

 

I bet if you did a panel by panel comparison, there were huge differences. I think I am right in saying that there were different diagram numbers issued as well.

[coachmann]

Hello coachmann

 

Many thanks for that. Could I trouble you for diagram numbers, please?

 

Brian

I think I can see why you asked........  ....I was stumped at the first hurdle and it serves me right for drawing conclusions. What I thought was a Bars III brake composite in a photo taken in BR days was in fact a E95 Bars II that had been heavily steel clad. There were no 57' Multibar brake composites although there is a very neat looking 70' version to Dia. E104. They are listed as being condemned by 1958.

 

So I would simply reverse the list and have a Bars I or II brake composite to E94 or E95  and have a Multibar brake third to D56. 

 

As for the rest, it is a case of take your pick. It might be possible with research to find Lots that share one common bogie, the 9' Fishbelly, although I rather suspect the 8' American is going to feature in many of the early diagrams and that the two bogie types will be required. I agree with Miss Prism that care is needed when considering coaches rebuilt from WW1 ex.Ambulance coaches.

Edited January 14, 2017 by coachmann

[BMacdermott]

Many thanks coachman

 

Indeed, a very difficult subject!!

 

Brian

[martinT]

Battery boxes are standard throughout the range but in differing positions. Brake third batteries were often at one end only.

Two different ends required. Panelled for Bars I & II; flush for Bars III

 

I hope pre-group collectors realise their coaches will be either brown or maroon fully lined out....Not chocolate & cream.  I rather suspect they don't, and so it might be more commercial to forget pre-grouping and apply 1922-28 full panelled chocolate and cream in its place and simply do a short run in 1912-22 panelled maroon livery at a premium price. The simple livery adopted from 1928 until early war years should be roundel livery. Why? Becasue the roundel is relatively easy to remove and replace with the 1928-35 twin cities shield totem. Forget post-war livery....It barely got going on older stock before the railway were Nationalized. That only leaves BR blood & custard. For BR maroon, think hens teeth.

Wouldn't coaches in the maroon livery be statistically more likely to have been gas-lit?

 

Martin

[Miss Prism]

Wouldn't coaches in the maroon livery be statistically more likely to have been gas-lit?

 

That's a nice large boulder you've thrown into the pond, Martin...

[coachmann]

Seeing as Multibar Toplights generally if not wholly had battery boxes and Bars I and II sometimes had gas and sometimes had battery boxes, I think it makes sense to ignore gas if only to make roofs simpler  (with less holes).

[Siberian Snooper]

Seeing as Multibar Toplights generally if not wholly had battery boxes and Bars I and II sometimes had gas and sometimes had battery boxes, I think it makes sense to ignore gas if only to make roofs simpler  (with less holes).

 

It would be easier to add gas lighting than to take it away.