HAB

Just to support the all compartment motor hypothesis, the two motors were formed into 4 LAV 2932 for a time in 1967 (see 4 SUB Story p65) and since the LAVs had compartment motors, why would they not select compartment ones for this job? Best wishes,

I just had a look through the pics I thought might be helpful, but in truth, the signs don't show up beyond the first vehicle in most photos. Since the provision of smoking accommodation changed so much over time, it would be hard to be dogmatic about any particular arrangement. I seem to remember that when we were refurbing the EPBs - which were all large saloons - just one of the trailers was smoking and the bad news is that I think both quarter light carried transfers. I can't imagine it was massively different 10 years earlier but the question would be "which trailer". I will keep looking for pics... What we needs is a savvy ex-commuter from the period who knew to seek out the bigger compartments - they would be able to tell us! Best wishes,

Can't blame the tolerances I'm afraid - in truth the fit is so good that you can "put it where you want it" and I failed to get it right! Must try harder next time. I did try a black pen but I think a CD marker might be much more opaque - thanks for that tip as I do have another EPB to do. Best wishes,

Hi Colin, Many thanks for the clarification. Just regarding the N/S transfers, are you aware that Replica Railways do these "in reverse" so that they can be applied on the inside? I used these for the EPB when I fitted the Lazer Glaze windows and I think they look excellent. They also do Blue Hotdogs should you wish to upgrade 11457 ! Regarding the repair patches, I am not sure I have ever seen .005" strip and only Evergreen seem to do 005" sheet and I find that stuff pretty difficult to cut cleanly as it seems much tougher than normal styrene and I suspect it is made from a different plastic. Best wishes, Edit:- trust me to choose a not very flush example to have its picture taken,,,

Hi Colin, Glazing looks very good and has to be better than trying to glue things in. Does this mean you will not be going for your previous "double layer" method this time? Just a question: the two retaining pin pricks: will you make these before assembling the body (ie - pre-making all the glazing before assembly) or will you push the glazing in and then administer the pin after the body is assembled and painted? Plus my supplementary: how will you represent the droplight top edge, given that previously you had this as part of the inner door layer? Best wishes, Howard.

Hi Colin, All looking first class and I echo the comments about the quality of the job. But the thing which most amazes me is your work rate! There is a phenomenal amount of work to get a 4 car unit this far, yet looking at the date you started this thread... Looking forward to the next instalment, Best wishes,

Hi Dave, I think Colin is right here - although the top flange cannot be seen, my logic is this:- 1. the bottom of the bodyside is level with the bottom of the body end 2. the bottom of the end sits on top of the headstock 3. the top face of the headstock is level with the top face of the solebar ergo - the bottom of the body sits on the top face of the solebar. I think the reason that the flange is never visible is because these all-tin bodies are a lot wider than than the frames that they sit on - thus the outer face of the body is three inched outside of the solebar. (well, that is only my current thinking!) BTW, I think this" logic" would not be true for LH stock which might well be an altogether different kettle of fish. Best wishes,

Are you sure Sean? I make 4" to be 1.33mm and 1/8" to be 1.67 thou. Radical thought - what about masking the side down to the edge of the repair strip with fine-line masking tape (the plastic stuff) and putting a couple of extra coats of primer where the strips need to be? Other wise it might be 5thou well rubbed back. Will be interested to see a trial of the Rizla idea though! Edit:- spelinng worgn agina Best wishes,

Colin, Still not convinced by the grammar, but the modelling remains excellent - well done!. Just one query - it was discussed before that the sides overhang the top flange of the solebar. Presumably therefore, the top level of the floor is lowered to allow the side to sit on top whilst appearing to cover the solebar? Best wishes,

.. no pressure there then! Great stuff as ever Colin! Best wishes,

That is true! As I recall, the gloss wore off quicker than the small of the paint Nice looking unit though - very well done! Edit:- that would be SMELL of course! Best wishes,

...and the same author's "A Southern Electric Album" - ISBN 1 85414 279 4 which includes some excellent shots. He also has produced "Slam doors on the Southern", much of which is a bit post modernist, but is worth buying just for the shot on pages 30/31! Debating colours in prose can be a bit tiresome, but just to add one point which I don't think has come up so far. Various sources refer to at least four different greens in use at various times and say that they were all different from each other:- - BR Loco Green - "Early" EMU Green - "Late" EMU Green (neither of these had anything to do with DMU green as has been stated) - Loco Hauled Coaching stock green. - the key being that I am sure I have a statement to the effect that EMUs were painted differently from loco hauled stock. (not least because LHCS never visited Selhurst / Slade Green / Peckham Rye.) Now here is my query - it is stated e.g in Brown's "Southern Electric" that:- " .. the early EMU green was lighter than the later shade and most units with pre-group body work went for scrap without carrying the later shade" yet, in the above book there are a number of pictures - ie on pages 29 and 30 of ancient SUBs in the early scheme but the green is very dark - even on a newly painted unit (page 29). The one conclusion that can be drawn from looking through "A Souther Electric Album" (in which the colour reproduction is as good as it con be) is that there are as many different greens as there are pictures! Just to pitch the cat at the pigeons, (if only to wind Colin up when he gets back from his lie down) it is clear that the green weathered much better that the blue - I remember the CORs / BILs and (even) HALs looking smart when they were first repainted but very soon after they were uniformly grey, matt and drab (see page 56). Though maintenance was needed for any paint job (see page 73!) (apologies to those who do not have the book, though following what is going on in this thread might be easier with it!) Still, all academic in Colin's case - he is depicting the thing so late in life that it was carrying brake block dust brown by then! Best wishes,

You are entitled to a lie down! Fantastic post - even by your your own high standards - many thanks indeed. Best wishes,

Wow! Separate plugs - It just keeps getting better! I like the idea of elastic for the jumper cables - will be interested to see if this helps them look "natural". Re the different conduits, I wonder if this because 4286 (left) is one of those fitted with front steps and eyebrow handrails? Best wishes,

Colin, Many thanks for this - something of a work of art in itself - and reminder to us all that these things don't "just happen": a bit of forethought and planning is a big help! Smoke and mirrors eh... ??? The socket on the far right is the power jumper dummy receptacle and I think you are right - its front should be almost a half-cylinder as the plug which goes in there is circular - the power jumper socket on the other side (the one in the middle of the left hand group) is "squarer" only because the top part of it contains the termination for the line cable to the power jumper connection box. However, dare I also suggest that the bottom half of this should also be a bit "rounded" as well? By contrast, the one next to it (middle of the RH group) is the control jumper socket and the plug which goes in here is rectangular in plan - hence a "square" box for the socket (and the dummy). http://www.flickr.com/photos/robertcwp/7159905040/sizes/l/in/photolist-aJF3y6-dQ42h5-fhpHJ2-9gWo4F-dTurMS-9apVs5-9eTG9e-9dw4E4-9arK23-aomDiL-bUGojC-aiC8fV-efcTeS-92UwLu-9dAzMa-92aDSn-8JAWzS-9nWuyB-9eXy7J-cjanes-eoaXib-fhpHKZ-9tNAGE/ Having said that - I just roughly measured your image above, and even on my high res screen it is more than twice life-size, so, as we used to say at Horwich: at 70mph, in a tunnel at midnight, no one will ever notice... Best wishes,

Wow, I would have said your tin HAL would be hard to better but you have managed it - particularly the extra detail on the headcode box and the proportions of the jumper boxes and sockets. Is it too late to request a blow by blow on exactly how you make these? (particularly the Control sockets) Sonofceptic's revelation (which seems to ring a bell somehow) presents an interesting challenge in the paint shop! Best wishes,

You had got away with it until then! Just a small suggestion for these short bits of really fine rod. If your 0.3 is too thick, by warming it (steam from a kettle) then pulling it, you can thin it down to anything you need - obviously, it does not work for long lengths as the thickness varies, but this does mean that for short bits you find exactly the diameter you need somewhere along the thinned length. Even better, since .3 is not cheap for what it is, you can pull much thicker stuff - including old bit of moulding sprue - down to almost nothing. But then you probably knew that anyway! Excellent stuff, and looking forward to more! Best Wishes,

Hello Colin, Great post on the compressors - many thanks - and a few more of such "blow by blow" write-ups would be very welcome. I had a trawl through some SUB pics and I see what you mean about the fuse box layouts. Hope you enjoy the magazines and I look forward to your feedback - I trust the dog was not put to too much distress! Best wishes,

Colin, Thanks for some excellent posts here! Just regarding the vee hangers, not clear from your pic if your vee hanger is cranked in so that the top is attached to the solebar but the bottom clears the trussing? Godfrey's pic shows this on the BIL DTC:- http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/gallery/image/53613-dtc6/ It also shows a fuse in this area (which I think is the heater fuse?) but which I don't see in your pic - do you know that the SUB Motors differed from the BIL DTCs in this regard? Best wishes,

Excellent post Godfrey - many thanks.

My post crossed your PM - sorry about that. And you are completely forgiven even if there were a few minutes of frantic page turning Best wishes,

Well. what a hotbed of news this place is! A 2 HAL eh? Heard it here first and your secret is safe with us Colin! I confess to being staggered that no one mentioned the lack of a compressor on the BIL until now - certainly I recall no previous discussion - here nor elsewhere. I must drop a note to Roxey as there is a potential market here as the 2NOL (and 3 SUB) does indeed have both a compressor and a cradle to carry it. It is a bit worrying that a single omission in one place can have consequences all over!! Fortunately, it is pretty obvious where it goes as there is only one space - behind the main equipment case, opposite the little box whose function I don't know which is between the grids and the main reservoir. (well, that is where the Roxey sketch shows it) Best wishes,

Many thanks for the kind offer which I will of course gratefully accept! Address will be on the way... Are you sure there are a few? I only found one - of 1883 (p101) as the others seem to show 1826, 1862 and 1822 (p20) which are Metrovick fitted. The shot of the other side you describe (p103?) is a Metrovick version as you should be able to see the Reverser, Line beaker and main equipment boxes with the Main res. to the rear. However, from the p101 shot and a couple of shots of the similar Subs, I am leaning to a theory that the layout was the same as the first production series of Bils - with EE equipment and the 90 ton end load underframe. That is just a theory but it is (tenuously) supported by the sketch layout supplied in the kit (which refers actually to the SUB version) which is the same as my Hornby BIL. Are you feeling that your SUB would have the same layout? And having said that - I just looked at said BIL and I can't see a compressor anywhere - has mine fallen off en-route from the People's Republic? Best wishes, Howard.

Hi Colin, I think you are on to something with the step boards there - now I have to work out what to do about it as it certainly shows! I agree also that the shoe fuse boxes can be improved on and the same is true of the line fuses - good place to start my scratch building practice! Re the layout of the underframe, I have not so far come across any definitive information other than what can be gleaned from photos. To some extent therefore I am reliant on guestimation. Now a comment like that normally has followers of this thread running for their negatives / drawings / notebooks, but I am less than optimistic that even they could help with just 8 2Nol units! Best wishes,

Many thanks Colin. In truth, the kit presents quite a number of challenges! Re bogie rivets, the trailer bogies do have half etched dimples to locate the rivets - but not the shoe gear bogie! I am hoping that the shoe beam and shoe fuse box will hide the lack. I chickened out of separate MU cables as it means drilling a hole in the end of the (hard brass) castings - but it would make the driving ends look a lot better - we will see what happens on the motor end. Re the step boards, I agree - the underframe is about 0,5mm over width over the step boards - a fact which I only discovered when I trial fitted the body - yet it looks worse than that and I have yet to fathom out why... I confess I don't I bother with compensation for bogies but I can see why you might need it for 00 Just re the electrical gear: not sure if you are aware, but only the last batch of Nols were fitted with the 1936 (EE) equipment - all the rest had Metrovick which was all in a body mounted cubicle. So my choice of going for one of those from the last batch is a bit perverse really! Cheers,