Wright writes.....

[Mallard60022]

Bits of plasticcard and brass for me, but I would have used those 3d vent covers if they had been available.

Love the pipework; yes, that was the Mike Trice method for those vents some years back. Been there etc. What a faff.

Good coach by the way.

Phil

[Headstock]

Love the pipework; yes, that was the Mike Trice method for those vents some years back. Been there etc. What a faff.

Good coach by the way.

Phil

Many thanks Phil,

 

The vents on the first one I ever did look pretty crude now, currently it's standing spare so a 3d upgrade has some appeal. The pipe work is based on the Mike Trice drawing, a few bits and bobs from the NRM, and a rather nice photo taken from an overbridge. The photo is of a dia 10c and has a couple of features that may be unique to that particular carriage, mainly the lack of grab handles and a different arrangement of the forward water filler.

[ecgtheow]

Dear Tony,

 

Just a suggestion at add even more realism to your excellent photo of the 2 B12's crossing. The wooden fence in front of the bridge stands out  as if it's just been creosoted absolutely perfectly (maybe it has been, though that seems unlikely?) & the contrast to the nearby telegraph pole is stark. In reality wood like that fencing weathers quite quickly to a silvery grey.

 

William Jenkins

[gr.king]

3d is definitely the way forwards for producing all the bits and bobs that are not so easily available in the hobby anymore. John Marsh of our group produced some rather nice items from the original works drawings. An LNER carriage tail Lamp, LNER brake van tail lamp, and a replacement Silvertown mechanical lubricator for an Ivatt Atlantic.

 

I saw some of John's products about 18 months ago, whitemetal castings from 3D print masters if I remember correctly. I was very impressed by the almost layer-free high resolution surface finish which he assured me was "as printed" rather than having been cleaned up. He was tight lipped at the time about the identity of the printer, certainly not Shapeways I thought. Now that I've seen the red material of that Silvertown lubricator I may have a clearer idea of who he was using - unless of course he has switched printers!

[Headstock]

I saw some of John's products about 18 months ago, whitemetal castings from 3D print masters if I remember correctly. I was very impressed by the almost layer-free high resolution surface finish which he assured me was "as printed" rather than having been cleaned up. He was tight lipped at the time about the identity of the printer, certainly not Shapeways I thought. Now that I've seen the red material of that Silvertown lubricator I may have a clearer idea of who he was using - unless of course he has switched printers!

 

Good evening Graham,

 

I know that John has tried a number of different printers over a period of time. I believe that the business that produced the lamps you would have seen was sold on to another party. As a result, John was not as happy with the finished items he was receiving. I know he has experimented with a number of different producers over a period of time, the lamps and lubricator are the first results of a new collaboration. By the sounds of it, you may know more about who that may be than myself. My own involvement has been purely concerned with suggesting suitable subject matters that I would like to see produced, and a bit of horse trading as regarding painting a few items in exchange. All of the 3d printed material is as produced without any cleaning up with the exclusion of any 'sprue' that needed detaching. My own photographs do not really do justice to the quality of either the CAD work or the finished items. John always works from original drawings and has mastered the technique of producing artwork that gets the best out of the 3d printing process.

[Mallard60022]

My previous request seemingly got lost so.....................quick repeat request if you don't mind?

Tony, a quick question if I may? On Gresley conversions using Hornby donor UFs is there a special way of getting the cross piece strips (for attaching the body to the floor pan) the correct width or is it a case of measure each one as required?

Thank you.

Phil

[Headstock]

 

My previous request seemingly got lost so.....................quick repeat request if you don't mind?

Tony, a quick question if I may? On Gresley conversions using Hornby donor UFs is there a special way of getting the cross piece strips (for attaching the body to the floor pan) the correct width or is it a case of measure each one as required?

Thank you.

Phil

 

Hi Phil,

 

The excluding full brakes and brake compartments, the distance between where the two sides of a Gresley carriage meet the floorpan should be about 33 mm.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Headstock

[Mallard60022]

Hi Phil,

 

The excluding full brakes and brake compartments, the distance between where the two sides of a Gresley carriage meet the floorpan should be about 33 mm.

Thanks. So it is measure the internal width once the sides are shaped and fitted to the ends and trim some scrap etch approximately that width. No short cuts (sorry) then.

Any other fitting method of body shell to floor pan for conversions gratefully received, especially if it doesn't  require soldering.

Phil 

[Headstock]

Thanks. So it is measure the internal width once the sides are shaped and fitted to the ends and trim some scrap etch approximately that width. No short cuts (sorry) then.

Any other fitting method of body shell to floor pan for conversions gratefully received, especially if it doesn't  require soldering.

Phil 

 

Probably a little wider as 33 mm represents the bottom edge between the sides. This is the narrowest point of the tumblehome and often overlaps the floorpan when the body sits in place. As a result, your cross member will probably be located perhaps half a mm higher where the tumblehome is slightly wider.

 

I use a completely different method for attaching the body to the floor pan when converting Hornby carriages. The sides are completely removed leaving just the roof and ends. The body is built as a box with two sides and two flat ends, the ends are correct in all dimensions as regard width at cornice level, waste, tumblehome and bottom edge. These false ends also serve as a template to get the correct profile throughout the length of the side, once this box is assembled the roof and ends fit over it. The ends are profiled to match the accurate template provided by the false ends. I attach an L-shaped bracket to the inside of the false ends in the Comet style, with a nut and bolt passing through this securing the body to the floor pan. I prefer this method because it ensures that the various widths across the body and tumblehomes are accurate.

 

I have to admit that I never use the Hornby floorplans because, excluding length, their dimensions and components are not accurate. You may have to make the carriage fatter to accommodate this. This is even more problematic with full brakes as they were narrower than the typical passenger carriages and had a flatter tumblehome as a result. The roofs were the same width over the cornice so they had a distinctive overhang over the narrower body sides.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Headstock

[Mallard60022]

Yes, I started a Triplet today and although not a conversion I reckon I need about 34/35mm for these braces on the conversions. Shame as I have a load of very useful brass pieces that are just too short!!

 

Probably a little wider as 33 mm represents the bottom edge between the sides. This is the narrowest point of the tumblehome and often overlaps the floorpan when the body sits in place. As a result, your cross member will probably be located perhaps half a mm higher where the tumblehome is slightly wider.

 

I use a completely different method for attaching the body to the floor pan when converting Hornby carriages. The sides are completely removed leaving just the roof and ends. The body is built as a box with two sides and two flat ends, the ends are correct in all dimensions as regard width at cornice level, waste, tumblehome and bottom edge. These false ends also serve as a template to get the correct profile throughout the length of the side, once this box is assembled the roof and ends fit over it. The ends are profiled to match the accurate template provided by the false ends. I attach an L-shaped bracket to the inside of the false ends in the Comet style, with a nut and bolt passing through this securing the body to the floor pan. I prefer this method because it ensures that the various widths across the body and tumblehomes are accurate.

 

I have to admit that I never use the Hornby floorplans because, excluding length, their dimensions and components are not accurate. You may have to make the carriage fatter to accommodate this. This is even more problematic with full brakes as they were narrower than the typical passenger carriages and had a flatter tumblehome as a result. The roofs were the same width over the cornice so they had a distinctive overhang over the narrower body sides.

That's a good idea. I'd never have thought of that. If I were really being fussy I'd narrow the floors as Larry G did (I seem to remember). However as I am a lazy ####### I only trim it a bit on the edges. The 'brackets' could be glued onto the false ends as well as they don't really take any stress.

Thanks Andrew I shall have a think about that method next time.

Phil

[Headstock]

Yes, I started a Triplet today and although not a conversion I reckon I need about 34/35mm for these braces on the conversions. Shame as I have a load of very useful brass pieces that are just too short!!

 

That's a good idea. I'd never have thought of that. If I were really being fussy I'd narrow the floors as Larry G did (I seem to remember). However as I am a lazy ####### I only trim it a bit on the edges. The 'brackets' could be glued onto the false ends as well as they don't really take any stress.

Thanks Andrew I shall have a think about that method next time.

Phil

 

Even if you trim back the sides it doesn't solve the problem of the solebars. The Hornby solebars are too deep and are set at 33 mm width when they should be 30mm, so they overhang the bogies and are almost as wide apart as the bottom of the sides should be. As a result, the step boards are weird stunted aberrations. Hornby got around the solebars not being set back in relation to the carriage sides by divesting the carriage of its tumblehome, why they made the solebars so far apart on their Gresley carriages and not on any others types that they produced is rather bewildering.

 

I did experimentally cut off and fit new solebars to a Hornby Gresley at the correct distance apart. This did nothing to correct the lack of tumblehome but it did look a lot better. However, it revealed a couple of other problems. The headstock now stuck out like the head of a hammerhead shark and the newly positioned solebars, of the correct depth, revealed an unsightly gap between the bogies and the underside of the carriage. When measuring to the top of the roof I found the carriage was too tall, the extra height being accounted for by the gap between bogie and solebar. Far too much work to correct all the problems so I did not repeat the experiment.

[jrg1]

Even if you trim back the sides it doesn't solve the problem of the solebars. The Hornby solebars are too deep and are set at 33 mm width when they should be 30mm, so they overhang the bogies and are almost as wide apart as the bottom of the sides should be. As a result, the step boards are weird stunted aberrations. Hornby got around the solebars not being set back in relation to the carriage sides by divesting the carriage of its tumblehome, why they made the solebars so far apart on their Gresley carriages and not on any others types that they produced is rather bewildering.

 

I did experimentally cut off and fit new solebars to a Hornby Gresley at the correct distance apart. This did nothing to correct the lack of tumblehome but it did look a lot better. However, it revealed a couple of other problems. The headstock now stuck out like the head of a hammerhead shark and the newly positioned solebars, of the correct depth, revealed an unsightly gap between the bogies and the underside of the carriage. When measuring to the top of the roof I found the carriage was too tall, the extra height being accounted for by the gap between bogie and solebar. Far too much work to correct all the problems so I did not repeat the experiment.

Very interesting to read of the deficiencies in Hornby Gresley carriages, and your conversion rectification work.  i would like to use Hornby's for brass sides, but have been put off, as they simply look odd.  Could we have some more on this subject, preferably with some explanatory photographs, please?

[Mallard60022]

I believe quite a lot of Tony's coaches have been conversions? If not, I apologise, however if they are good enough for him then they would be fine for me.

I am sure Tony has sets of pics of conversions from his previous BRM articles. If you are willing to compromise then I think using the cheapo Hornby donors is OK, but that is only my opinion. It is really about the same cost to buy a kit (well Comet ones, as MJT total cost is a bit more expensive, but that is not a gripe) and if you kit build it can take the same time to do. Horses for courses and each to his or her own.

Also many of the coaches on Peterborough North are conversions. That layout has good looking trains using a mix of coaches; layout coaches, RTR and beautiful kit builds. It is only in close up photo's that I see differences. When I go and watch the trains going by (as I do from time to time) I just enjoy the memories and the experience. If it were a P4 exhibition layout then it might be a different matter? 

Recently I did a catering car conversion for P North. Being a lazy #### I fiddled the bogies. Using the existing Hornby bogie filed down on the sides and MJT cosmetic HD Bogie sides thinned down also, I glued the MJTs to the Hornby sides. Lo the bogies were probably far too wide, however, when  fitted, they actually looked more the correct width in comparison to the body and solebars; an illusion and only noticed if seen almost head on. However in OO then the bogie/wheels always look 'narrow gauge' when viewed end on in my opinion.

Although I very much like LNER stock, I'm glad I don't model it in the main as I would be singing from Headstock's sheet I am sure.

Be kind, I have to tolerate Baccy Bulleids 

Phil

 

[The Blue Streak]

Very interesting to read of the deficiencies in Hornby Gresley carriages, and your conversion rectification work.  i would like to use Hornby's for brass sides, but have been put off, as they simply look odd.  Could we have some more on this subject, preferably with some explanatory photographs, please?

 

Not Sure about them looking odd, what I have seen here look great to me, but I also would like to see and hear as much as I can about the conversions. I have been looking at what Phil has been doing with Gilbert and I am really looking forward to tackling some myself in the near future.

I am keen to acquire as much info as I can first, So have been reading these last few posts with great interest. Thank you to everyone for being so forthcoming with their tips and ideas.

[Mallard60022]

Here are the fiddled bogies (see post #10809) 

 

 

and another on a coach conversion I am just finishing. D144 RFK.

 

Phil

Edited July 26, 2016 by Mallard60022

[micklner]

Here are the fiddled bogies (see post #10809) 

 

Img_0355.jpg

Img_0356.jpg

 

and another on a coach conversion I am just finishing. D144 RFK.

Img_0357.jpg

 

Phil

 

A obvious question? why didn't you se the Hornby bogies as they come? I have done a couple of MJT Brass side conversions on Hornby's without any problems with the Bogies.

[jwealleans]

Those are heavy duty bogies, I think, Mick, for a catering car.

[micklner]

I did wonder , should have looked the rivet pattern !! Did Hornby use them on the Sleeper version ?, must check on that. 

 

 

edit

 

Just had a look double rivet versions on my LNER Sleeper and Buffet versions. EKM used to sell the bogies as spares, no idea if they still have any.

Edited July 26, 2016 by micklner

[Headstock]

and another on a coach conversion I am just finishing. D144 RFK.

Img_0357.jpg

 

Phil

Hi Phil,

 

it may be of interest to you that the sole bar on Gresley carriages was an L-shape section, not a U-shape as modeled by Hornby. You could actually cut away the top of the U-shape channel right back to the sole bar face so that it doesn't stick out beyond the sides. If you are worried about support then that will be achieved by the brackets you mentioned earlier.

[Mallard60022]

Hi Phil,

 

it may be of interest to you that the sole bar on Gresley carriages was an L-shape section, not a U-shape as modeled by Hornby. You could actually cut away the top of the U-shape channel right back to the sole bar face so that it doesn't stick out beyond the sides. If you are worried about support then that will be achieved by the brackets you mentioned earlier.

Is that the top 'strip' to be scraped away? I have done that in the past but forgot on the last two I did. Doh!

What's your verdict on the over-wide bogies, or are you too polite to say?   

 Thanks Andrew.

P

Edited July 26, 2016 by Mallard60022

[Headstock]

Very interesting to read of the deficiencies in Hornby Gresley carriages, and your conversion rectification work.  i would like to use Hornby's for brass sides, but have been put off, as they simply look odd.  Could we have some more on this subject, preferably with some explanatory photographs, please?

Hi jrg1,

 

sorry, I don't know your name, yes they do look very odd. I stripped the Hornby underframes of all reusable components and binned the offending article. Then I built a new floorplan and refitted the usable components, some items such as the battery boxes were too small so I popped them in the spares box for other projects. I have used Kirk floorplans but have standardised on the MJT range. To be honest they are not that difficult to scratch build.

 

As regards info and photographs, I am currently in exhibition preparation mode so time is limited, but if people are interested I will post when I can.

[Headstock]

Is that the top 'strip' to be scraped away? I have done that in the past but forgot on the last two I did. Doh!

What's your verdict on the over-wide bogies, or are you too polite to say?   

 Thanks Andrew.

P

 

Phil,

 

yes, the area immediately beneath the sides where you have already taken some material off.

 

P.S. Your bogies are extremely heavy duty!

[jwealleans]

Andrew, has your article on teaking been published yet?

[billbedford]

it may be of interest to you that the sole bar on Gresley carriages was an L-shape section, not a U-shape as modeled by Hornby. You could actually cut away the top of the U-shape channel right back to the sole bar face so that it doesn't stick out beyond the sides. If you are worried about support then that will be achieved by the brackets you mentioned earlier.

 

 

Err no. The solebars were a 10" x 3.5" bulb angle. The flange was at the tap and the bulb along the lower edge.

[Mallard60022]

Err no. The solebars were a 10" x 3.5" bulb angle. The flange was at the tap and the bulb along the lower edge.

Sorry Bill I'm being thick but I can't get that; what is a bulb angle?

Thanks

Phil