Glazing methods for coaches

[chrisf]

Having made the discussion on the Mousa Models thread (http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/topic/17375-mousa-models/page__view__getnewpost__fromsearch__1) stray from its stated purpose, I thought I would try to open up the debate in its own little enclave.

 

In particular I have flush glazing in mind. Ever since Kitmaster got it right over 50 years ago we seem to have fought shy of their method, which is to use individual panes for each window. This is fine where the sides of the coach being glazed have enough thickness to grip the pane in its aperture but what of etched brass? I'm always willing to be proved wrong but it does seem to me that 0.012" thick sides are too thin to support individual panes so many users are content to fix the glazing, now almost flush, behind the windows.

 

While you are thinking about this let me lob another thought at you, prompted by iL Dottore's work with a PC Models kit. Here we have a classic missed opportunity by the manufacturer. Why on earth did they go for a two-dimensional representation of fully panelled stock? Surely it would have been a good way to replicate steel panelled coaches. Think about it: steel plate alongside a so-called flush glazed window must scale out at the thickness of a coat of paint.

 

Chris

[Miss Prism]

Hi Chris - yes, I would also say that flush-glazing 0.012" thick windows is not sanely feasible unless the aperture area is very small. If etched brass manufacturers want to finesse the situation, probably the best that can be done is a half-etched recess. At least that will be closer to a prototype thickness of panel or surround, which is typically 3/16" thick (about 2 to 3 thou in 4mm scale). Having said that, one of my pet hates is where etched brass manufacturers provide only a half-etch on the front for door droplight apertures - these are recessed typically 1.5" to 2" on the prototype (from the front of the sides) so a double thickness of etch for such apertures rather than a paltry half one would be far more suitable. I guess it comes down to whether kitbuilders are prepared to do the extra work in attaching separate glazing pieces or demand to put a single glazing piece along the whole side.

 

Kitmasters were great in their day, but I think their glazing inserts look rather crude in comparison to what some RTR manufacturers achieve today, and of course the problem for the DIYer with any moulded glazing where intermediate bars (for vents etc) are moulded on is the painting.

 

Regarding the PC Toplights, I do agree they were rather bizarre, and also very garish. Their MkIs though using the same technology can look fabulous, at least in side view. Horses for courses I guess.

[iL Dottore]

Regarding the PC Toplights, I do agree they were rather bizarre, and also very garish. Their MkIs though using the same technology can look fabulous, at least in side view. Horses for courses I guess.

 

Now that the PC Kits toplight is almost complete, I'd have to agree with you Miss P - but a liberal amount of grot on the coach (together with etched grab handles) should move the kit into the realm of "passable"...

 

But I digress, whilst on the subject of PC Kits, I would have thought that the PC Kits printing on acetate and etched brass methodology could be married together. Assuming that a sturdy enough "lattice" of etched brass (a la David Jenkinson) could be made to represent the panelling, then a half-etched "rear" would allow for a suitably printed acetate sheet to be inserted behind the panelling lattice. This should be able to give a flush glazing effect (whether or not the acetate that is inserted behind the lattice is printed would be, I think dependent upon how easy it would be to colour match the printed acetate)

 

But what of body shells in clear plastic? Married to thin brass etched overlays (say the thickness of the MJT etches for GWR carriage emergency brake rodding), these would also - I would think - provide pretty near scale flush glazing - but again careful masking would be needed to get a good outcome.

 

F

[Jol Wilkinson]

You should put PC kits in context with the period that they were produced. What Peter Chatham did was to provide kits of carriages with complex livery, at a relatively low price, compared with what it would cost to get a model made and painted. It was at a time when most modellers had not been educated to achieve those sort of results, nor were there very many etched kits to work from.

 

Further, you should know that the beading on carriage sides was not as deep as was sometimes represented on moulded plastic kits. The beading on LNWR carriages was 3/8" deep - that equates to .005" or just less than the effect produced by half etching carriage sides from .012" brass, which is the 4mm "standard".

[Chrislock]

Hi.

As a 2mm modeller working on some Worsleys at present, an internal flush glazing strip is my only option - though no doubt some 2mil finescale modeller somewhere has done individual panes!!

Now if I was doing 4mm finescale I would take on individual panes as a matter of course.....

 

Regards

Chris

[artisan100]

Miss Prism said

I guess it comes down to whether kitbuilders are prepared to do the extra work in attaching separate glazing pieces or demand to put a single glazing piece along the whole side.

 

The early Comet sides had the droplights provided as half etched in the sides, but following comments from customers (who are always right!) later coaches in the range had droplights as separate etches to be soldered in where required (i.e. fully closed, half open, etc.) which means that you can't glaze using one strip along the length of the coach.

 

So, big question, which would be your preference?

 

Geoff

Comet

[Adrian Wintle]

 

The early Comet sides had the droplights provided as half etched in the sides, but following comments from customers (who are always right!) later coaches in the range had droplights as separate etches to be soldered in where required (i.e. fully closed, half open, etc.) which means that you can't glaze using one strip along the length of the coach.

 

So, big question, which would be your preference?

 

Geoff

Comet

 

You can't use a single strip of glazing when some of the droplights are etched half open anyway. Well, you can, but it is a whole lot easier to do it in sections rather than accurately cut out all the open sections of the droplights on one strip.

 

About half the coaches that I model weren't flush-glazed anyway, but for those that were I can live with thin plastic or glass mounted to the inside of the brass side (glass slide covers look realy nice, but are a pain to cut to size). This is probably because I mainly model more to create train formations rather than to get the ultimate detail on a single coach.

 

For plastic/RTR, I find solutions like the vac-form SEF flush glazing work reasonably well for larger windows, but are less convincing on smaller ones due to the roll of the edges.

 

Adrian

[coachmann]

The early Comet sides had the droplights provided as half etched in the sides, but following comments from customers (who are always right!) later coaches in the range had droplights as separate etches to be soldered in where required (i.e. fully closed, half open, etc.) which means that you can't glaze using one strip along the length of the coach.

 

So, big question, which would be your preference?

I'm firmly in the etch droplight into the sides camp!

 

It is hard to believe modellers actively seek to make life difficult for themselves but there we are. I am aware people told Comet they wanted separate droplights to solder in, but I do wonder if they ever built non-corridor coaches! Fitting some 38 separate peices of glazing into one coach is not my idea of fun thats for sure.

 

My coaches were etched on 15thou from the outset (not the industry standard of 12thou) and all droplights were etched in situ.

 

Larry

[Swissrail]

I'm firmly in the etch droplight into the sides camp!

 

It is hard to believe modellers actively seek to make life difficult for themselves but there we are. I am aware people told Comet they wanted separate droplights to solder in, but I do wonder if they ever built non-corridor coaches! Fitting some 38 separate peices of glazing into one coach is not my idea of fun thats for sure.

 

My coaches were etched on 15thou from the outset (not the industry standard of 12thou) and all droplights were etched in situ.

 

Larry

 

I'm with Larry on this one Geoff. Aside from it being easier to glaze the coach with a single strip, even if you have to cut notches out of it for the open droplights, the hassle of getting the separate droplight etches centred and soldered in the door's window aperture can be a real pain. If some sort of locating mechanism could be fashioned a la MJT that would make things easier but then you've still got the glazing issue. I have some of the early Comet sides with the droplights etched in as part of the side, and to be honest, the difference in appearance is negligible, even close up.

 

Alan McMillan

[jwealleans]

I think we're seeing a difference of opinion between the professional modelmaker and the enthusiastic amateur here.

 

Personally I don't mind separate droplights but prefer a positive method of locating them like D & S or Bill Bedford. I think MJT ones are the same.

 

But then again I'm not building for a living.

[David Bigcheeseplant]

If I can I use Masokits droplights and glazing retainers, it means that you can slide the glazing in once painted without using glue.

 

David