Wright writes.....

[billbedford]

The GC carriage is in pre-1930's condition. After they were withdrawn from front-line service they were given sliding window vents above the compartment windows, as in this one from a slightly later build. 

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, billbedford said:

The GC carriage is in pre-1930's condition. After they were withdrawn from front-line service they were given sliding window vents above the compartment windows, as in this one from a slightly later build. 

Thanks Bill,

 

Most-useful.

 

Though difficult to discern exactly, there appear to be a few ventilators/ducts on the roof. I wonder if a drawing exists for this car. I'll check the Isinglass lists, unless someone already knows. 

 

According to Longworth, (at least) one of these types made it to BR days (long enough to receive a BR number). By then, I imagine it would just be painted brown, but what would the branding style be, I wonder? LNER or BR? 

 

On those 10' bogies, I bet it still rode beautifully. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[gr.king]

Working slowly and carefully, I managed to drill the buffer stocks without breakage on the printed Barnums I finished off last year.

 

I'm particularly interested to see whether both of the curved sides of newer matchboard counterparts genuinely appear free of steps / layers when thinly painted and seen in close-up under strong oblique light. That will show whether they are truly good enough for a subtle teak finish without a load of pre-paint preparation.

 

Isn't the convenient assumption that so many teak vehicles became plain brown after 1948 a bit questionable?

[billbedford]

2 minutes ago, gr.king said:

Isn't the convenient assumption that so many teak vehicles became plain brown after 1948 a bit questionable?

 

Sort of. Carriages which were shopped and deemed likely to be withdrawn before the next major shopping were to be painted plain brown otherwise they were to be given the new BR liveries. As always the application of this rule varied at different works. 

[jrg1]

Can you give more details of the Longworth volume, please?

[gr.king]

2 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

Sort of. Carriages which were shopped and deemed likely to be withdrawn before the next major shopping were to be painted plain brown otherwise they were to be given the new BR liveries. As always the application of this rule varied at different works. 

Depending on the thoroughness of shopping of an older vehicle, might the teak finish in fact be largely left alone if deemed "good enough" in those post war years of genuine austerity? It's not difficult to imagine circumstances dictating an "essential repairs only" policy, no matter what the official rule was.

[Tony Wright]

34 minutes ago, jrg1 said:

Can you give more details of the Longworth volume, please?

There are two of them on pre-Nationalisation coaching stock. Volume 1 features the GWR and the LNER. Published by Crecy in 2018, it stretches to 480 pages. It would appear to list every passenger-carrying vehicle (including parcels stock) with numbers throughout the vehicles' lives, including those of stock latterly used in Departmental service. There are many drawings as well, but rather small scale. At £40.00, to me, it represents outstanding value for money, though be prepared for various aches once you pick it up!

 

The mis-listing regarding Barnums is a little bit concerning, because how many other mistakes are there? However, there's so much of value in the book to make it a must for any carriage-builder (even though I was too indolent to consult it to begin with). 

 

The second volume features the the Southern and LMS carriages (at the same price). There is also a book by the same author/publisher featuring BR Mk.1 and Mk.2 carriages (at £45.00 for 304 pages, perhaps it's not quite such 'outstanding value for money', though it has more photographs, some in colour. A complement to the Parkin volumes on the same subject?).

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited December 9, 2023 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

12 minutes ago, gr.king said:

Depending on the thoroughness of shopping of an older vehicle, might the teak finish in fact be largely left alone if deemed "good enough" in those post war years of genuine austerity? It's not difficult to imagine circumstances dictating an "essential repairs only" policy, no matter what the official rule was.

Good afternoon Graeme,

 

I don't have the 'definitive' answer on this. Who does? 

 

My assumption of (older) brown-painted stock LNER stock is based on photographic evidence (some in colour). Ex-GE stock appears often in colour volumes, often quite late-on in branch line service, and it's definitely brown-painted, not (even faded) teak. 

 

In the Longworth volume I mentioned in my last post, there are several images to the rear (only B&W) showing pre-Grouping carriages still in BR service as late as 1957. Though two have been repainted in Carmine/cream or maroon, the others appear to be plain brown, with no evidence of any graining showing through (which would be the case were they still in teak?). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[jwealleans]

We've been here before, Tony, with your GE Restaurant Car.   Catering vehicles were repainted as they were estimated to have a medium term future at least.   The GE ones were in traffic long enough to be painted maroon.   However if this particular type was already being withdrawn at Nationalisation then even an all over repaint seems unlikely as Graeme suggests.  

 

I've had a quick flick through the Seabrook photos and all the former GC catering cars he photographed had been converted to kitchen cars as has already been said.   A few are in a plain all over colour (presumably brown), one or two are visibly teak (one at Hornsey in 1955) but most have been given blood and custard and at least one is in maroon.

Edited December 9, 2023 by jwealleans

[MJI]

Some people use magnetic couplings.

 

I have decided to do my own, what magnets should i use,  modding keen close coupling system.

 

 

[billbedford]

1 hour ago, gr.king said:

Depending on the thoroughness of shopping of an older vehicle, might the teak finish in fact be largely left alone if deemed "good enough" in those post war years of genuine austerity? It's not difficult to imagine circumstances dictating an "essential repairs only" policy, no matter what the official rule was.

 

Possibly, but any such coach with a major shopping after spring/summer 1948 would have been given the new BR livery. 

 

New brooms and all that. 

[mdh1950]

On 03/12/2023 at 13:25, Tony Wright said:

Speaking of various drives, a few of possible interest which I've found to be entirely successful............

 

In no particular order of merit - merely alphabetical..................

 

 

Backwoods Miniatures and a Mashima powering a B12. Both, sadly, no longer available as far as I know. 

 

Branchlines and Mashima.

 

 

Multi-stage to power a DJH 'Semi'.

 

 

And a single-stage to power a B12.

 

 

Comet and Canon.

 

 

Inside a B1. 

 

 

Prior to Mashimas no longer being made, Comet made 'boxes to suit them (top). 

 

The London Road J6 (bottom) has its own LRM simple 'box, which I later altered to disguise its appearance underneath the boiler (see later).

 

 

To 'slow' D13s down, DJH made a 'box to suit them, though this SEF A3 chassis is still the fastest I've got!

 

 

The current DJH motor/gearbox combinations. Pricey? Yes, but on a par with a second-hand Portescap and (unless it's an old Portescap), much quieter.

 

 

The AM 10 fits snugly into a D2. 

 

 

And an ancient Stephen Poole J15 (which I mechanically-rebuilt for a friend, then sold-on). DJH used Mashimas previously, then supplied their own motor.

 

As for the K's Mk.2................................

 

 

On a small loco, with a low-slung boiler, the drive is invisible. 

 

Michael, I hope you're still happy with this little antiquarian piece. 

 

 

And a DJH AM9, installed in V2 frames (which now romp around Retford). 

 

Just occasionally, a drive will run better in one direction than the other. If that's the case, I just turn it round to give the better performance going forward. When I say better, it's usually down to quietness.

 

 

A High-Level  'box and Mashima. Though this (because of the motor's rotundness) will only drop into EM or P4 frames, the big advantage is that the motor can subsequently be removed without taking the whole assembly out of the frames.

 

The disadvantage? Nothing to do with the motor, but that final gear can only be fixed by an 'adhesive' of some kind. I dislike this arrangement, finding a grub-screw far, far superior.

 

 

Indeed, this High-Level box in this (really ancient) ECJM L1 has a grub-screw. 

 

I've built three High-Level 'boxes now, and found them to be excellent. However, an equal number (installed in locos built by others) I've found new homes for have been rather noisy. I suppose it comes down to care in assembly.

 

 

Which is just what Geoff Haynes did in assembling the frames for this EM 'Buffalo' using a High-Level drive (I built the loco's bodywork - the reason I didn't build the chassis is because the customer supplied friction-fit drivers; something I cannot get on with). 

 

 

London Road Models supply a simple fold-up 'box to go in many of its kits. 

 

I arranged this one (in a J6) to be 'under-slung' (as already mentioned). 

 

 

Whether Markits still supply a gearbox, I don't know (especially now with Mashima's disappearance), but.......

 

 

It certainly made-up well.

 

 

And, with a hefty Mashima, more than enough to power a P2.

 

Again, the design, if necessary, allows for the easy removal of the motor. 

 

 

For those who may never have seen one...........

 

Judging by the packaging, this is an old Portescap - which it is, and it's quiet! 

 

 

The largest one is ideal for powering an A3.

 

 

And the shorter one powers a V2 with equal excellence.

 

A whole new Comet chassis replaced the original Nu-Cast lump and old-style open-framed motor. 

 

 

Even the smallest Portescap has loads of power. 

 

This is installed in the EM frames for CLUMBER. She runs on Retford and, after years of previously-failed attempts with B17s to haul the 'North Country Continental', romped away with the heavy boat train. 

 

 

South Eastern Finecast made a simple fold-up, single-stage gearbox to go with a small Mashima. With the latter's disappearance, I don't know if the 'box is still available. 

 

 

Has anyone ever used one of these?

 

 

Years and years ago, the Rolls-Royce of motors was the American Pittman.

 

There's one inside this scratch-built B2 (builder unknown), painted by Geoff Haynes and weathered by Geoff West. 

 

Though it still runs well (if a little noisily and slowly), it's going to be converted to EM and will have one of the drives illustrated above installed to replace the Pittman. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tony, trust all is well with you and Mo. Yes the “antiquarian piece” is doing well.

Regards, Michael

[Willie Whizz]

[cynicism mode on]
 

No doubt Mr Longworth has been quite bombarded with people pointing out errors in his book, many of them un-necessary had he only (a) waited forever until more accurate information became available and (b) asked for the input of others, who he already seems to have antagonised, and (c) not been regarded as such an insufferably arrogant individual. But surely he will have a website on which some at least of such errors are acknowledged and corrected. And he will not dare deliver another manuscript to a publisher again until he is 1,110% certain there is no error, even though nobody else has delivered anything comparable on the same subject. 
 

Or am I thinking of two other authors …?

 

[cynicism mode off; sorry]. 

[Bucoops]

Is it cynical if it is true?

[Dunsignalling]

22 minutes ago, Willie Whizz said:

[cynicism mode on]
 

No doubt Mr Longworth has been quite bombarded with people pointing out errors in his book, many of them un-necessary had he only (a) waited forever until more accurate information became available and (b) asked for the input of others, who he already seems to have antagonised, and (c) not been regarded as such an insufferably arrogant individual. But surely he will have a website on which some at least of such errors are acknowledged and corrected. And he will not dare deliver another manuscript to a publisher again until he is 1,110% certain there is no error, even though nobody else has delivered anything comparable on the same subject. 
 

Or am I thinking of two other authors …?

 

[cynicism mode off; sorry]. 

A cheap and convenient method of ensuring a second edition will be worthwhile?

 

That's how you do cynical! 🤣

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

[cynicism mode on]
 

No doubt Mr Longworth has been quite bombarded with people pointing out errors in his book, many of them un-necessary had he only (a) waited forever until more accurate information became available and (b) asked for the input of others, who he already seems to have antagonised, and (c) not been regarded as such an insufferably arrogant individual. But surely he will have a website on which some at least of such errors are acknowledged and corrected. And he will not dare deliver another manuscript to a publisher again until he is 1,110% certain there is no error, even though nobody else has delivered anything comparable on the same subject. 
 

Or am I thinking of two other authors …?

 

[cynicism mode off; sorry]. 

I'm sure that everything I've ever written will have an error/mistake/blooper/contradiction - call it what you will (how about my prediction, a decade and more ago, that there'll never be a Thompson Pacific RTR?!). 

 

Regarding the comment on Mr Longworth's notable (and very-valuable) book where he erroneously mentions Barnums, not once but several times, it completely misled me; to the point where I considered having to radically alter that carriage I've just put together (built is hardly an apposite description). Thank goodness someone pointed the errors out. Not to 'bombard' the author with shouts for corrections, but to ensure that others don't make the same mistake.

 

Yes, the publication entirely free of errors has yet to appear (it never will), but once one commits oneself to print (as I have done hundreds of times) then, to me, there is a responsibility on the part of the knowledgeable reader to make known any errors. Otherwise, they're compounded. I welcome them.

 

And, I'm not being cynical.............

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited December 9, 2023 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

6 hours ago, jwealleans said:

We've been here before, Tony, with your GE Restaurant Car.   Catering vehicles were repainted as they were estimated to have a medium term future at least.   The GE ones were in traffic long enough to be painted maroon.   However if this particular type was already being withdrawn at Nationalisation then even an all over repaint seems unlikely as Graeme suggests.  

 

I've had a quick flick through the Seabrook photos and all the former GC catering cars he photographed had been converted to kitchen cars as has already been said.   A few are in a plain all over colour (presumably brown), one or two are visibly teak (one at Hornsey in 1955) but most have been given blood and custard and at least one is in maroon.

Good evening Jonathan,

 

Please excuse my ignorance, but how much did the exterior of former GC catering cars alter when they were converted to Kitchen Cars? I assume the roofs received more in the way of ducts/ventilators, plus more gubbins underneath, but what about the window arrangements? Presumably any windows would be white after the conversion? If the model conversion is not too complicated, I might try it. 

 

Or, if it is too complex, I'll just sell it and the buyer can finish it in full LNER teak. 

 

Does anyone have a photo they can show of any of the prototype conversions, please?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[jwealleans]

Good evening Tony,

 

I can't claim any authority either, only what I can see from the pictures the LNER Society hold.   Bill has already stated that the coach is in pre 1930s condition, so I didn't try to match windows and the Seabrook photo captions and notes don't always quote diagrams.  I can't therefore say for certain that I've looked at a picture of the same diagram of carriage as yours.   In short, though, all windows are whited out and they're branded 'Kitchen Car'.   Livery could be any one of the variants already mentioned up to and including maroon.

[Woodcock29]

20 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Jonathan,

 

Please excuse my ignorance, but how much did the exterior of former GC catering cars alter when they were converted to Kitchen Cars? I assume the roofs received more in the way of ducts/ventilators, plus more gubbins underneath, but what about the window arrangements? Presumably any windows would be white after the conversion? If the model conversion is not too complicated, I might try it. 

 

Or, if it is too complex, I'll just sell it and the buyer can finish it in full LNER teak. 

 

Does anyone have a photo they can show of any of the prototype conversions, please?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony

Bill makes the comment above that by the 30s they had been fitted with sliding window vents above the main windows so that's a change to the sides.

Andrew

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Woodcock29 said:

Tony

Bill makes the comment above that by the 30s they had been fitted with sliding window vents above the main windows so that's a change to the sides.

Andrew

Yes, I realise that, Andrew,

 

On closer examination of the model, there are sliding vents above some of the windows in the open saloons - four on each side! 

 

I think I'll just put it to one side until I have more photographic evidence. The notion of a Kitchen Car appeals to me (no interior to bother about), but just imagine the howls of fury I'd be receiving if I just went ahead by a fair bit of guesswork? In carmine/cream, it would look very attractive I'm sure, but not if it's not 'accurate'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Jesse Sim]

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

. 

 

Or, if it is too complex, I'll just sell it and the buyer can finish it in full LNER teak. 

 

 

A sensible thing to do, you have my address 🤣🤣🤣

[richard i]

Would a conversation with the designer clear up some questions. It has to have been drawn with an era in mind. They may have researched far enough to say, “ until this year” or “not before this year” with the configuration of vents etc. it would all depend if it was primarily designed for their personal use for year x or for commercial reasons to be for the most popular sales point. I can not see clearly if it would be accurate for GCR days or only later in LNER days. After that we are out of territory I have anything more than a passing knowledge of. 
richard

[Chamby]

18 hours ago, MJI said:

Some people use magnetic couplings.

 

I have decided to do my own, what magnets should i use,  modding keen close coupling system.

 

 

A couple of club members have started to use these… but based on their experience I have decided to stick with my Kadee’s… for now.

 

I recommend that you buy some first to see whether they are worth the investment, and benefit from their learning to date.  West Hill Wagonworks produce a range of magnetic Hunt couplings in various styles and lengths, I think Hornby and Accurascale may also have some.

 

They have evolved over time.  They appear to use small neodymium magnets that can be bought quite cheaply on Amazon, the first versions used a single magnet on each wagon end so the polarity meant they were ‘handed’ meaning you could only couple up with the wagons running in one direction.  Later versions have two magnets paired side by side with opposite polarity, so that they attract whichever way round the wagon is placed.

 

My observation is that they seem to work well as long as the weight of the train does not exceed the strength of magnetic attraction, and you don’t have curves with a tight radius, and insufficient flexibility in the coupling structure that causes the magnets to cant against each other and lose their full face-to-face magnetic force.  I have also seen some derailing where the magnetic force is strong enough to maintain a rigid connection between two bogies resulting in insufficient flexibility to negotiate a curve properly.

 

They have their advocates and do seem to work well in many cases, but I’m not yet convinced that they are a universal option.  
 

Good luck!

[Tony Wright]

18 minutes ago, Chamby said:

A couple of club members have started to use these… but based on their experience I have decided to stick with my Kadee’s… for now.

 

I recommend that you buy some first to see whether they are worth the investment, and benefit from their learning to date.  West Hill Wagonworks produce a range of magnetic Hunt couplings in various styles and lengths, I think Hornby and Accurascale may also have some.

 

They have evolved over time.  They appear to use small neodymium magnets that can be bought quite cheaply on Amazon, the first versions used a single magnet on each wagon end so the polarity meant they were ‘handed’ meaning you could only couple up with the wagons running in one direction.  Later versions have two magnets paired side by side with opposite polarity, so that they attract whichever way round the wagon is placed.

 

My observation is that they seem to work well as long as the weight of the train does not exceed the strength of magnetic attraction, and you don’t have curves with a tight radius, and insufficient flexibility in the coupling structure that causes the magnets to cant against each other and lose their full face-to-face magnetic force.  I have also seen some derailing where the magnetic force is strong enough to maintain a rigid connection between two bogies resulting in insufficient flexibility to negotiate a curve properly.

 

They have their advocates and do seem to work well in many cases, but I’m not yet convinced that they are a universal option.  
 

Good luck!

Good morning Phil,

 

I tested Hornby's magnetic couplings on Little Bytham earlier this year (the video is somewhere on YouTube). They were fine on a loading of about 15 modified RTR coaches, but when 20 or more kit-built cars were put behind locos (an Accurascale Deltic and a DJH A3, running independently) the leading carriage to second carriage coupling parted. 

 

Since I can't see an occasion when such loads would be contemplated in 'normal' running, then I'd say the magnetic couplings are fine (as are Heljan's between their car carrier - though that's only six cars). Since Bytham's minimum radius on the main line is 36", then no problems were encountered on curves.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, richard i said:

Would a conversation with the designer clear up some questions. It has to have been drawn with an era in mind. They may have researched far enough to say, “ until this year” or “not before this year” with the configuration of vents etc. it would all depend if it was primarily designed for their personal use for year x or for commercial reasons to be for the most popular sales point. I can not see clearly if it would be accurate for GCR days or only later in LNER days. After that we are out of territory I have anything more than a passing knowledge of. 
richard

Good morning Richard,

 

I'll investigate that possibility.

 

The 3D-printed GC carriages were initial produced by Alan Rose and his son-in-law for Alan's Spalding layout project, only latterly their being offered for sale. Since the layout represents the LNER in the '30s, then they'll be 'correct' for that time (or, at least, one might assume so).

 

By the way, in answer to an early query, there appear to be no 'printing marks' at all on this latest car.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.