Wright writes.....

[CF MRC]

Dipping in to Ww, as one does, I wondered if I was in the correct place with all this Midland talk…

 

Tim

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, CF MRC said:

Dipping in to Ww, as one does, I wondered if I was in the correct place with all this Midland talk…

 

Come now, what is Little Bytham if not a model of an important Midland route crossing some obscure secondary line?

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Those are beautifully lined out so it's deeply unfortunate that there are some mistakes:

• The 8-compartment third is in the pre-1905 livery, so must be from one of the 1903 Manchester South District close-coupled sets, so needs another eight carriages to go with it! The coat-of-arms was not used on thirds, only firsts and composites.
• The 4-compartment brake third is in the pre-1905 livery but carriages of this type were not built until 1908/9.
• The 40 ft composite looks good but has 8 ft bogies of a later type than those fitted to carriages of the 1880s.
• The 48 ft composite is a type built for London area and Nottingham area sets in 1911-14 but is in pre-1905 livery. (The way that livery was applied varied over time but the usual arrangement for bogie composites was for the coat of arms to be under the running number.) These carriages had five first and two third class compartments; the panel between the first and third compartments, two in from the right hand end, was single rather than double.
• The 45 ft composite had two first class compartments and four third; the first towards the LH end should be a third.

None of the buffers, as far as I can see, are the right type for these carriages, being mostly the later Bain type. All three 48 ft carriages were in close-coupled sets in Midland days anyway.

 

I dare say I sound obnoxious but frankly I'm surprised at Larry making such mistakes. I lay no claim to arcane knowledge; all the above can be (has been)  gleaned from Lacy & Dow, Jenkinson & Essery, and Midland Style, so has been in the public domain for getting on for four decades. - nearly 50 years in the case of Midland Style.

Good evening Stephen,

 

I'm glad I don't model the Midland Railway!

 

Though Larry Goddard paints to an exquisite standard, having sold dozens of carriages he's painted (many built by Derek Lawrence, and mainly ex-LMS), 'absolute accuracy' in livery-application is not always present.

 

I recall visiting the Lawrence establishment in Cheshire, many years ago, with a friend who was buying several ex-LMS carriages (some of which I later sold on behalf of his bereaved family). Derek Lawrence was obviously a good salesman, because he extoled the excellence of the carriages with considerable gusto, and my friend bought more! 

 

At the same time he had a couple of LNER apple green Pacifics and some teaks for sale. When I pointed out the errors (of which there were several), in as polite a way as I could, it was suggested I never visit him again!  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, davknigh said:

Going out on a limb here but ISTR Larry Goddard put his name on anything he painted. A chum has a Stanier Mogul painted by LG and it has his name on the underside along with the name of the guy who built the kit.

 

Cheers,

 

David

 

Good evening David,

 

It's my experience that Larry Goddard signs everything he paints - with a wonderful signature in paint, underneath each model. He also paints the date, and, in many cases, the owner's name. On occasions, the builder's name will also be present, often on an engraved plate. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

52 minutes ago, CF MRC said:

Dipping in to Ww, as one does, I wondered if I was in the correct place with all this Midland talk…

 

Tim

Good evening Tim,

 

Why not?

 

The previous page has been the most exciting, interesting and enlightening for many a long time!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Steamport Southport]

Tried to get a couple of photos of that MR carriage. Bear in mind I was about 10 or 11 when I built this. Probably taking a couple of hours on a Sunday afternoon. Not actually many parts involved apart from all those lamp tops and vents. As easy as building an Airfix plane or tank I reckon.

 

The camera on the phone is a bit rubbish.

 

There was an attempt to paint the wooden droplights and I do have the other bogie (somewhere with a brake coach in a similar state). I was probably planning on trying to line it and there is no glazing fitted, even though it looks like it's glazed in the top photo. The Crimson is Humbrol Railway Colour and is just a single coat. Also no compartments fitted as there wasn't any in the box!

 

 

 

 

Jason

[Compound2632]

Just now, Steamport Southport said:

Bear in mind I was about 10 or 11 when I built this.

 

One was my first attempt, but I was 12. Not as good-looking as yours and thickly painted in a rather bright red!

[Steamport Southport]

Whilst I was messing with the phone I thought I would take these as well as they were mentioned.

 

Recent eBay buys. Occasionally there are still bargains.

 

ISTR it was about £70 for the LRM Jinty. £20 for the Craftsman MR Jinty. I was surprised it's whitemetal as other Craftsman kits are brass.

 

 

 

 

And getting back on the subject of D&S. I think this was £35. I thought it would go with my J70 and J15.

 

 

All at the bottom of the pile though as I want to finish other things before starting anything else!

 

 

Jason

[Willie Whizz]

These latest mentions of “close coupled” carriages have got me wondering … what did the old railway companies see as the advantages of this practice?

 

The immediately obvious one is, I suppose, a slightly shorter overall length; and I do know train length was an issue at some stations - but surely the ‘saving’ can hardly be more than a foot or so per carriage - so for typical overall train lengths allowing theoretically not much more than one ‘extra’ compartment per train and surely nowhere near a whole vehicle.  So, if not that, what else would the object be?

[Bucoops]

2 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

These latest mentions of “close coupled” carriages have got me wondering … what did the old railway companies see as the advantages of this practice?

 

The immediately obvious one is, I suppose, a slightly shorter overall length; and I do know train length was an issue at some stations - but surely the ‘saving’ can hardly be more than a foot or so per carriage - so for typical overall train lengths allowing theoretically not much more than one ‘extra’ compartment per train and surely nowhere near a whole vehicle.  So, if not that, what else would the object be?

 

I would say that an extra compartment or two per train would be most welcome for inner suburban traffic - bear in mind the Great Eastern went to the extent of splitting coach bodies in half, inserting a new section, to widen the bodies to allow two more seats per compartment.

[Barry Ten]

I'm not making any great claims for these, but here are my three Ratio Midland coaches, behind Mike Edge's beautiful G&SWR 4-6-0. The coaches were built as per the kits, brush painted with crimson and then lined with a bow-pen and Rotring, followed by HMRS transfers. There are still things to be done.

 

 

They're not in the same league as the Dave Hunt carriages TW showed earlier, but they look OK in a train.

 

Al

 

 

[lezz01]

6 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

Whilst I was messing with the phone I thought I would take these as well as they were mentioned.

 

Recent eBay buys. Occasionally there are still bargains.

 

ISTR it was about £70 for the LRM Jinty. £20 for the Craftsman MR Jinty. I was surprised it's whitemetal as other Craftsman kits are brass.

 

 

 

Jason

I have 4 Craftsman 0-4-4T kits 2 are WM with brass chassis and 2 are etched brass bodies with nickel silver chassis only one of them is the Belpare boiler version so there was evolution.

Regards Lez.

[Compound2632]

12 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

These latest mentions of “close coupled” carriages have got me wondering … what did the old railway companies see as the advantages of this practice?

 

Any set of carriages with the couplings properly screwed up - or with buckeyes - should move as a single unit, so I don't see how that can have a bearing on the question.

 

For this reason, with my RTR 1950s-period stuff, I like to use the Roco-style couplers within a rake. Tension locks, on the other hand, nicely simulate the action of a loose-coupled goods train.

[Willie Whizz]

20 hours ago, Bucoops said:

 

I would say that an extra compartment or two per train would be most welcome for inner suburban traffic - bear in mind the Great Eastern went to the extent of splitting coach bodies in half, inserting a new section, to widen the bodies to allow two more seats per compartment.

But then why not just build longer carriages in the first place?  Most of the ”close-coupled” trains (such as the GN quad-arts as well as these Midland carriages) were indeed built that way in the forst place, not adapted to it. So this doesn’t stack up as an explanation I think, in most cases. 

[Bucoops]

2 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

But then why not just build longer carriages in the first place?  Most of the ”close-coupled” trains (such as the GN quad-arts as well as these Midland carriages) were indeed built that way in the forst place, not adapted to it. So this doesn’t stack up as an explanation I think, in most cases. 

 

Weight and cost? 2x4 wheel coaches on potentially timber underframes weighs less than two 4 wheel bodies mounted on a steel underframe with bogies. Again looking at the GER - when they reworked Liverpool St. to run the most intensive suburban service in the world, they used 4 wheeled, close-coupled coaches. Smaller engines could get the trains moving quickly, and also stop quickly.

 

Later on when more powerful locomotives were available, they did exactly what I alluded to above - took two 4 wheeled coach bodies and put them on a bogie underframe. Still close coupled of course.

 

 

[Willie Whizz]

But still “conversions” - which doesn’t explain why bogie “new-builds” would be made that way in some cases, but not all. 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Willie Whizz

[rodent279]

40 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

 

Weight and cost? 2x4 wheel coaches on potentially timber underframes weighs less than two 4 wheel bodies mounted on a steel underframe with bogies. Again looking at the GER - when they reworked Liverpool St. to run the most intensive suburban service in the world, they used 4 wheeled, close-coupled coaches. Smaller engines could get the trains moving quickly, and also stop quickly.

 

Later on when more powerful locomotives were available, they did exactly what I alluded to above - took two 4 wheeled coach bodies and put them on a bogie underframe. Still close coupled of course.

 

 

How on earth did Stena Line come to have a pair of GER coach bogies?

[jimwal]

8 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

How on earth did Stena Line come to have a pair of GER coach bogies?

Aparantly part of a vehicle loading ramp. Maybe inherited when they took over the port operation.

 

This coach is at Mangapps Essex together with a part-dismantled coach end that shows the widening conversion that the GER done to increase capacity.

[billbedford]

On 06/07/2023 at 20:36, Willie Whizz said:

These latest mentions of “close coupled” carriages have got me wondering … what did the old railway companies see as the advantages of this practice?

 

The immediately obvious one is, I suppose, a slightly shorter overall length; and I do know train length was an issue at some stations - but surely the ‘saving’ can hardly be more than a foot or so per carriage - so for typical overall train lengths allowing theoretically not much more than one ‘extra’ compartment per train and surely nowhere near a whole vehicle.  So, if not that, what else would the object be?

 

It was more likely due to needing a more robust coupling on trains with, for the time, relatively high acceleration. That screw couplings could fail can be seen as even in BR days all brake vans carried a spare.  

[Tony Wright]

Mention has been made of late of D&S kits.

 

I must admit to not having built many; only three, but I've found them to be excellent.........

 

 

This, I believe, is called a Milk Van.

 

 

It's seen in company with a kit built from the same source by John Houlden.

 

 

I even chose the same number when I painted it!

 

 

Next was the so-called 'Pigeon Van'.

 

 

Which Geoff Haynes painted for me.

 

I made it for Ian Wilson as a Christmas present..............

 

 

To run on his Edenham. 

 

After the C12 (which I also built for him) had run round its train............

 

 

And the fireman had fixed the lamp in position, I took a picture of it after it had set back (you can see 'me' in readiness in the previous shot).

 

 

The ex-GE RU was a lovely kit..................

 

 

Which I built/painted for use in the 'Leicester' on the MR/M&GNR section of LB (one was used in the service on the last day of through running, at the end of February, 1959).

 

 

Speaking of that date, 43060 waits at Spalding to take over one of the last west-bound services to Nottingham. 

 

I don't recommend a visit to Spalding station today!

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Mention has also been made of late of short passenger-carrying stock................

 

Here's a selection of some wonderful model examples.

 

Seen on...........

 

 

 

Ambergate in EM (now P4, I believe).

 

 

 

Bridgwater in O.

 

 

Buckingham in EM.

 

 

Dewsbury in S7.

 

 

Dolgelley in O.

 

 

Grantham in OO, with Dan Pinnock's scratch-built Stirling Single in charge. 

 

I think some of this stock also ran........

 

 

On Little Bytham during the '38 LNER weekend in 2018, this time hauled by an RTR Stirling Single. 

 

 

And more examples were being built to replicate the early 'Flying Scotsman'. 

 

Here are some 'not quite wonderful' examples on Little Bytham..............

 

 

The Hornby and Hattons 'generic' pre-Grouping four-wheeled and six-wheeled stock.

 

I'll see if I can find more examples of 'short' carriages................

 

 

 

 

[Woodcock29]

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Mention has been made of late of D&S kits.

 

I must admit to not having built many; only three, but I've found them to be excellent.........

 

 

This, I believe, is called a Milk Van.

 

 

It's seen in company with a kit built from the same source by John Houlden.

 

 

I even chose the same number when I painted it!

 

 

Tony I think there is some confusion here. The painted BR version of this van is one I think you built from a brass Isinglass kit? Its not the same model as the D&S brass one you show above. The end section louvres are different (and incorrect in the etch).

 

These vans are actually general vans to Dia 86. The milk van version is Dia 87 which didn't have the toplights in the centre section and consequently the louvres in those two sections are directly under the cantrail. D87 was also made by Danny - I acquired a built one last year from a deceased estate in Sydney. I already had a built D&S D86 and have two more of those to build.

 

The D&S kit is the better kit.

 

Andrew

Edited July 8, 2023 by Woodcock29
Add comment

[micklner]

Parcels and Full Brakes a selection.

 

D&S 305 General D.86

 

Chivers RC106 General Van

 

 

 

 

 

 

D&S 184 NER CCT

 

 

Chivers LWB CCT .NER/LNER

 

 

D&S 174 NER Luggage Van

 

 

 

D&S D.87

 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2023 by micklner

[micklner]

D&S 184 NER CCT in use as Elephant Van still in  part NER livery.

 

 

Chivers Pigeon Van . Plastic kit.

 

 

D&S DS 186 Aeroplane van

 

 

 

D&S 266 GNR Full Brake

 

 

Edited July 8, 2023 by micklner

[Woodcock29]

Hi Mick

Thanks for posting your photos. In the first post the second and third photos are of the same van - an LNER CCT built 1939 not what you describe although it maybe a Chivers kit?

 

I'm glad to see the D&S NER CCT - I'm shortly to strip one of those and repaint it, along with one of the Chivers 4 wheel NER CCTs. Both were acquired built in NER livery and are likely to need some resoldering in places.

 

Andrew