Who is correct - Gresley corridor stock end designs?

[Bucoops]

Good Morning All,

 

This has been bugging me for a while - I have 3 different manufacturer or kits/scratch aids, and 3 different end shapes - and two different drawing shapes!

 

The evidence - 

 

1) Worsley Works over Nick Campling drawing (excuse the bad angle - the bottom of the part is inline on the drawing):

 

 

2) Worsley Works over Isinglass drawing:

 

 

3) Left to right: RDEB (note the etch error at the bottom as well); MJT; Worsley Works:

 

 

4) MJT over RDEB:

 

 

5) MJT over Worsley Works:

 

 

So - Worsley Works' design is quite close to the Nick Campling drawing, and MJT is quite close to the Isinglass drawing (I took the photos against the drawings a while back - I should have done one with the MJT design as well really). MJT appears to follow the shape towards the sides better? The RDEB design seems to be over-scale? It's noticably higher, but also the sides are slightly wider too, especially at the turnunder.

 

This leaves a few issues - RDEB coach bodies are noticeably bigger than others, and I can't find a roof that fits Worsley Works' etches. I could try and use MJT ends on Worsley sides - but the sides are about 1mm shorter than others because of the lower cornice height which leaves a gap.

 

If I could get the diagrams I need from one supplier I wouldn't mind but each does some, with a couple of crosssovers - and quite a few of the RDEB GE section coaches have etching errors. Any thoughts on which design is most accurate and how to get past the issues with the others? Which drawing is more accurate?

 

Thanks

 

 

 

 

[chris p bacon]

I've not used any of the above but would the RDEB be wider because they are designed to be used as donor sides over an existing Hornby Gresley ?

[31A]

I've made a couple from RDEB kits and the top of the end is certainly way too high.  I removed a lot of material (using tin snips for the bulk of it!) to get it to match the plastic moulded roof I was using, which I think was the one which Wizard (used to?) sell under the 51L label.  It also had the etching error at the bottom that your picture shows, which I think got filled with solder as part of attaching the sides.

[Bucoops]

20 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

I've not used any of the above but would the RDEB be wider because they are designed to be used as donor sides over an existing Hornby Gresley ?

 

Hi Dave,

 

the RDEB (Rupert Brown) kits come as sides, ends and partial interior. The instructions say to use the D&S GNR underframe, which I managed to get one of. I don't think it's intended to use a donor coach at all.

 

thanks

[Bucoops]

On 05/05/2020 at 10:10, 31A said:

I've made a couple from RDEB kits and the top of the end is certainly way too high.  I removed a lot of material (using tin snips for the bulk of it!) to get it to match the plastic moulded roof I was using, which I think was the one which Wizard (used to?) sell under the 51L label.  It also had the etching error at the bottom that your picture shows, which I think got filled with solder as part of attaching the sides.

 

Thanks Steve. I haven't plucked up the courage to try and fill the etch holes - I did ask Wizard if there was a chance of the tools being corrected but he said they don't sell in quantities that would make it worthwhile doing - totally understand.

 

Just as a side note, these are the RDEB kits with the etching errors that I'm aware of:

 

 

And these ones are ok:

 

 

I don't know either way on any of the others.

 

The Worsley coach etch I have is:

 

 

I don't know if any of the others in the range are the same shape.

 

I think I will try and use MJT ends on the RDEB kits perhaps? 

 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2023 by Bucoops
Fix missing photos

[31A]

Rich, the one I made with the gaps at the bottom of the end was LNED146; I had to reduce the height of ends on it.

 

For that I used this MJT underframe, and the MJT truss rod posts etc. that go with it as a substitute for the D&S underframe which is recommended but hard to get.

 

https://www.dartcastings.co.uk/mjt/2850.php

 

https://www.dartcastings.co.uk/mjt/2805T.php

 

I had previously made an ex GNR Open Third conversion to Buffet Car, sorry can't remember the reference but I'm sure I had to reduce the height of the ends on that one, as when I came to doing the second one I remembered having to do it before!

[Bucoops]

Thanks Steve - I have an MJT underframe for one - as it's designed for non-corridor you have to trim the top of the ends - and neither the RDEB or MJT etches have the headstock so you have to make those. The MJT headstocks come with the sides, the D&S underframe has them. Not impossible but more work!

[MikeTrice]

Nick Camplings drawings are usually pretty good.

 

First off some images.

 

Here is part of a General Arrangement for an end. As it is a photograph there may be slight distortion in the x and y axis:

 

The vast majority of LNER coaches have a 3" turnunder at the base of the sides. Note the shape of the top edge of the roof where it meets the end. You can see it here, actually a GNR vehicle:

 

The various curves that make up the slope of the end of a Gresley roof when viewed from the side is made up of a number of reducing ellipses:

 

Perhaps a little history might be of use which might explain the current state of play. These are my personal opinions so you may, or may not, agree.

 

First off the Kirk kits. Instead of reproducing the ellipse profile of the coach end, the Kirk moulding appear to be a simple arc. To my eyesight the curve looking from the side is not smooth enough. When I did some experiments a while ago I felt the Kirk sides were too low and the roofs too tall giving the coach a top heavy look. I can spot a Kirk Gresley build very easily as the errors stand out like a sore thumb if you know what to look for.

 

When Comet first introduced their etched Gresleys I think their sides and ends were intended to go with a Kirk roof moulding and their profiles set to match. When the Comet range was extended they introduced their own roof extrusion based on a BR Mk1 profile which they used across their kit range. The coach ends for their non-vestibule stock is clearly wrong in cross section.

 

The MJT end was taken direct from the GAs as was the MJT LNER elliptical roof and roof ends.

 

Different kit manufacturers have chosen one of the above roof solutions and matched their ends to them hence the variations.

 

I have recently totally reengineered a Gresley End for 3D printing. Trying to cross kit Comet sides to my accurate ends they proved too short and I had to produce a revised 3D end which was shrunk in the Y axis to match the Comet sides.

 

So as you say, a bit of a mess.

[MikeTrice]

Just found some very old photos that show the experiments carried out on Kirks.

 

On the left is a standard Kirk. On the right the Kirk sides have had their moulding draft removed from the top edge and some styrene added to make the sides taller, then MJT roof and domed ends added:

 

The same comparison seen from the side. The right hand coach has also had the moulding draft opened up in the windows:

[brossard]

4 hours ago, MikeTrice said:

Nick Camplings drawings are usually pretty good.

 

First off some images.

 

Here is part of a General Arrangement for an end. As it is a photograph there may be slight distortion in the x and y axis:

 

The vast majority of LNER coaches have a 3" turnunder at the base of the sides. Note the shape of the top edge of the roof where it meets the end. You can see it here, actually a GNR vehicle:

 

The various curves that make up the slope of the end of a Gresley roof when viewed from the side is made up of a number of reducing ellipses:

 

Perhaps a little history might be of use which might explain the current state of play. These are my personal opinions so you may, or may not, agree.

 

First off the Kirk kits. Instead of reproducing the ellipse profile of the coach end, the Kirk moulding appear to be a simple arc. To my eyesight the curve looking from the side is not smooth enough. When I did some experiments a while ago I felt the Kirk sides were too low and the roofs too tall giving the coach a top heavy look. I can spot a Kirk Gresley build very easily as the errors stand out like a sore thumb if you know what to look for.

 

When Comet first introduced their etched Gresleys I think their sides and ends were intended to go with a Kirk roof moulding and their profiles set to match. When the Comet range was extended they introduced their own roof extrusion based on a BR Mk1 profile which they used across their kit range. The coach ends for their non-vestibule stock is clearly wrong in cross section.

 

The MJT end was taken direct from the GAs as was the MJT LNER elliptical roof and roof ends.

 

Different kit manufacturers have chosen one of the above roof solutions and matched their ends to them hence the variations.

 

I have recently totally reengineered a Gresley End for 3D printing. Trying to cross kit Comet sides to my accurate ends they proved too short and I had to produce a revised 3D end which was shrunk in the Y axis to match the Comet sides.

 

So as you say, a bit of a mess.

 

Thanks for the pictures Mike.  I have a pair of 7mm Kirk Gresleys languishing in a box waiting for me to get my finger out.  This is an illuminating discussion.

 

John

[MikeTrice]

The 7mm kits suffer the same problem regarding end profile I think.

[brossard]

Yes, probably.  Looking my completed Gresley BG, the ends don't look like the photo.  My roof is not flush so I might look at improving that.

 

John

[Bucoops]

7 hours ago, MikeTrice said:

Nick Camplings drawings are usually pretty good.

 

First off some images.

 

Here is part of a General Arrangement for an end. As it is a photograph there may be slight distortion in the x and y axis:

 

 

The vast majority of LNER coaches have a 3" turnunder at the base of the sides. Note the shape of the top edge of the roof where it meets the end. You can see it here, actually a GNR vehicle:

 

 

The various curves that make up the slope of the end of a Gresley roof when viewed from the side is made up of a number of reducing ellipses:

 

 

Perhaps a little history might be of use which might explain the current state of play. These are my personal opinions so you may, or may not, agree.

 

First off the Kirk kits. Instead of reproducing the ellipse profile of the coach end, the Kirk moulding appear to be a simple arc. To my eyesight the curve looking from the side is not smooth enough. When I did some experiments a while ago I felt the Kirk sides were too low and the roofs too tall giving the coach a top heavy look. I can spot a Kirk Gresley build very easily as the errors stand out like a sore thumb if you know what to look for.

 

When Comet first introduced their etched Gresleys I think their sides and ends were intended to go with a Kirk roof moulding and their profiles set to match. When the Comet range was extended they introduced their own roof extrusion based on a BR Mk1 profile which they used across their kit range. The coach ends for their non-vestibule stock is clearly wrong in cross section.

 

The MJT end was taken direct from the GAs as was the MJT LNER elliptical roof and roof ends.

 

Different kit manufacturers have chosen one of the above roof solutions and matched their ends to them hence the variations.

 

I have recently totally reengineered a Gresley End for 3D printing. Trying to cross kit Comet sides to my accurate ends they proved too short and I had to produce a revised 3D end which was shrunk in the Y axis to match the Comet sides.

 

So as you say, a bit of a mess.

 

Good Morning Mike,

 

Thank you for your replies - very informative and thorough, thank you. I was aware that the Kirk kits aren't quite right - a product of their time. I *think* I have an old Comet kit somewhere too, but it does ring a bell that their profile wasn't correct either but not sure where it is to look at.

 

Looking at the prototype photos including the one you kindly posted it does look like the arcs used on your MJT and the RDEB are correct, although the RDEB is for very tall people?! The Worsley ones definitely seem to go too far down.

 

I personally prefer etched ends to whitemetal (I'm not great at soldering whitemetal to brass) but it does look like the MJT ends will have to be my "weapon of choice" if I can't sort an alternative.

 

hHanks

[MikeTrice]

I note from the Wizard site that the old Kirk roofs are still supplied with the Comet Gresley kits. Hope they have good stocks ;-)

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

Of course, you could always use Hornby ends!!!!

 

Mike.

[Bucoops]

33 minutes ago, MikeTrice said:

I note from the Wizard site that the old Kirk roofs are still supplied with the Comet Gresley kits. Hope they have good stocks ;-)

 

I wonder if in some strange parallel universe, Coopercraft have a working injection machine with decent moulds?

[jwealleans]

Or does Colin Ashby still make them?

[MikeTrice]

As far as I know Colin had the original Kirk moulds. It was Colin's intention to retool both the roof and ends but never got around to it before the moulds were passed on to Coopercraft. Isinglass used to supply an alternative plastic moulded roof but I don't think they actually produced them. I don't recall matching ends though.

[davelester]

2 hours ago, MikeTrice said:

 

 

Mike,

 

How does the brake-end differ from the standard 9'3" end you've shown us? It's not just a slimmed down version is it? My hunch is that it stands more "vertical".

 

Does the early LNER 9'0" stock look similar? The underframe would be identical in width, so again, I think the sides look less bulged, and more "vertical". Is that right?

 

Finally do you have anything on the GNR Howlden non-bogie non-gangwayed roof and/or end profiles? If it's too much trouble, I'd instead appreciate the NRM drawing reference -- though when we get a chance to order them again would be anyones guess!

 

 

[MikeTrice]

You are correct regarding the more vertical aspects for the brake end. Best illustration is the attached image. Note that the lower curve is the same for both ends but as you say the upper panels are more upright:

 

Earlier 9'0" stock as per drawing:

 

Will look to see what I can find for the Howldens.

[MikeTrice]

From drawing 102E:

 

[davelester]

1 hour ago, MikeTrice said:

From drawing 102E:

 

Thank you very much indeed Mike!

 

It makes interesting viewing since in a chat with Danny Pinnock many years ago, he suggested my use of a three-arc roof on my orchid van drawing (an interesting 1896 item of NPCS) -- made by guessing from the Diagram Book drawing -- should have been elliptical.

Edited May 6, 2020 by davelester
Rewording

[davelester]

1 hour ago, MikeTrice said:

You are correct regarding the more vertical aspects for the brake end. Best illustration is the attached image. Note that the lower curve is the same for both ends but as you say the upper panels are more upright:

 

 

Thanks very much indeed. My guess would be that you made the MJT ends for the later standard 9'3" stock, yes?

[John Tomlinson]

Whilst there is this discussion, I've always wondered if the Thompson stock has the same cross sectional profile as the Gresley (obviously other than at the domed ends). The diagrams I've seen in books suggest as well this is very close to that used by Bulleid when he introduced his stock on the Southern. However I don't have the large scale detailed drawings to check.

 

Both Thompson and Bulleid stock seem to have a similar bulbous profile of roofs, in contrast to that of the BR Mk1 that followed and is noticeably different.

 

Apologies for going a bit off thread.

 

John.

[MikeTrice]

42 minutes ago, davelester said:

 

Thanks very much indeed. My guess would be that you made the MJT ends for the later standard 9'3" stock, yes?

I guess so. It was a looooong time ago.