David Jackson

Found an article on the L&LSR online which on P30 refers to not being able to turn the two 4-8-0 locomotives on L&LSR turntables without detaching the tenders, as the turntables were only 30 feet diameter. http://www.irrs.ie/eJournal/IRRSeJournal001.pdf

I have to agree with Jeremy, the roof profile is not quite right, it is too rounded.

There is a picture in Norman Johnston's The GNR in Colour, on P73 which shows BUT Trailer 114, an L13 Brake 3rd. All windows seem to be clear except for the boiler compartment which looks opaque. There is also a picture on P67 in which the boiler compartment window looks different to the others.

Found a drawing in my collection of the modified D5

It turns out that there was another UTA half cab bus that had an experimental front door fitted. This one was a PS1, A7845 GZ6073 converted in 1953, but lack of co-operation from the unions put paid to OMO as they insisted a conductor had to be part of the crew. Apart from fitting the front door, and panelling over the rear door, unlike MZ1929, the body was otherwise unaltered. There is a picture in 'Buses in Ulster Vol 2. The Ulster Transport Authority 1948-1967'.

Keiran, the bottom of the strips rest on the top of the bogie and act as stabilisers to prevent the body from rocking side to side.

I have read, with interest, the comments made about the new RPSI Cravens coaches, and have to agree that the livery is very attractive. Unfortunately, I have no interest in such up to date vehicles. I have also read about the running qualities of these coaches compared with the MM versions, which seems to be due to different bogies being fitted. This is a problem which has afflicted other manufacturer’s coaches over the years, and one which I have successfully cured with the minimum of work. I therefore set about trying to do the same with Cravens coaches. As I said already, I don’t have any of the RPSI Cravens, and my modification has been done on a MM Cravens, but the principle is exactly the same. I have made a number of assumptions about the RPSI coaches. Firstly that the wheels are running true, secondly that the underside of the RPSI version is the same as the MM version, and thirdly, that the top of the bogie is completely flat, at least at the outer edges, like the MM ones. The method; Remove the bogie and coupling mechanism, taking care not to lose the spring. Two 4.3mm lengths of 1mm X 2.5mm plastic strip were cut, and glued to the inside of the solebar in line with the bogie pivot. 1mm plastic strip was used as anything thicker would foul the close coupling mechanism. Once set, a straight edge was used to ensure that the ends of the plastic strips and the bottom of the bogie pivot were exactly in line. If the plastic strips are too long, the ends can be carefully filed until the strips and pivot are aligned. If they are not perfectly in line, the bogie may be stiff to swivel. The bogie and coupling mechanism were refitted, and the bogie checked for free movement. Only one bogie is required to be done, as this will effectively provide a three point suspension system for the coach. Doing both bogies would make the coach too rigid for less than perfect track. If the results are less than satisfactory, then the plastic strips can be removed and you can have your wobble back.

If it is only dimensions you are after, R.J.A. Pue's book 'Steam Locomotives of the Ulster Transport Authority' gives all the Principal Dimensions of ex GNR locos that the UTA inherited. There are no actual drawings in the book.

I hate to have to point out that MPD Trailer 532 was never a representative of NCC North Atlantic Express stock, it was never even an NCC Coach, having been built by the UTA in 1951 as a J16 Corridor 3rd number 304, for The Festival Express.

As soon as I saw what had been done with the drive shaft, before even seeing the video clip, I knew it would not be satisfactory. You might get away with that arrangement if the bogie was fixed rigidly in place, but of course that can't happen. The only solution is to have two flexible joints, one at each end of the driveshaft like the original. To do that you need to move the motor so that it is central in the chassis. In order to do that, some material needs to be removed from each side of the inside of the chassis, see the picture below. The motor can then be repositioned centrally, and the two driveshafts can be shortened to fit. The motor can be secured with silicone, which can be easily removed should the motor ever need to be taken out again.

After three years of being on and off the back burner, the EGV is finally complete. The long delay has been mainly due to lack of roof detail, and being overtaken by other projects, but eventually sufficient information was obtained for the build to proceed. The pictures show the completed van, firstly in bare plastic, then in Halfords grey primer, and finally fully finished and painted. The van is entirely made from plastic sheet, rod and strip. The only commercial parts used, were the two Hornby brake van roofs used to form the basic roof profile, the gangways are by Jouef, and the buffers are by MJT. As with the earlier RPSI van, the EGV is running on Jouef Mk 3 bogies, until such time as something more suitable comes along. The final two pictures are of a couple of Hornby Mk 2s reliveried, to go with the EGV. As per the prototype vehicles, the InterCity logo is located in different positions on the coach sides. ​

Surely you mean an NCC "Y" Class Colm. The "X" Class was an H&W diesel. Nice video though.

Killarney station operates like that. Through trains have to reverse in or out.

Yes, the wheelbase is more akin to a B12 with smaller wheels. I have to say that I did use a Hornby B12 as the basis for a BCDR Baltic tank more than forty years ago. I can't remember what happened to it, but I have not got it now.

I would have to disagree. The Hornby N15 chassis has unevenly spaced driving wheels, with a larger gap between the rear and centre drivers. Having said that, I have no idea what chassis was used as a donor.

The arrival of the OO Works GNR(I) U Class 4-4-0 has certainly opened a can of worms regarding the running qualities of what is a superb, and expensive, RTR model of an Irish prototype. For the money paid, one would expect the model to be a superb runner, as well as a superb looker. Not having seen one of these models in the flesh, I don’t know how easy it would be to fit extra pickups to both the locomotive and tender, but from the photos I have seen, it would seem to be fairly simple. The second issue is the weight distribution problem. 4-4-0s are notorious for having poor pulling power, and being front end heavy. They also have a tendency, due to the short rigid wheelbase, for the front end to wiggle from side to side, even when running on straight track, and for a massive front end overhang when traversing pointwork and curves. My solution to the weight distribution problem, also addresses the ‘wiggle’ and overhang problems. All my 4-4-0s are fitted so. The examples shown are old Tri-ang 2P 4-4-0 chassis fitted with Romford wheels, Mashima motors and 44-1 gearboxes. A piece of nickel silver wire, or thin piano wire is used as a vertical spring, and also acts as a lateral bogie centraliser. A hole, big enough for the wire, is drilled either vertically, or horizontally, in the chassis. The wire is inserted in the hole, and secured rigidly. For the vertical hole, I have soldered the end to a tab washer, which is secured by the chassis extension bar fixing screw. For the horizontal hole, a second hole is drilled vertically, tapped for an 8BA screw, which secures the wire. I would assume that a liberal application of superglue, or careful use of epoxy glue could do the same job, but I have no experience of this. At the bogie pivot, which in my locos is a hollow rivet, a suitable pin is made up. In one example, an 8BA screw with a nut as a spacer is used. A hole is drilled horizontally through the head of the screw, large enough to allow the wire to slide freely in it. The wire is centralised simply by bending, and then adjusted vertically by bending, until the required amount of vertical support is achieved. You can keep adding weight and adjusting the wire until you are satisfied with the resultant pulling power. The horizontal centralising qualities will allow the bogie to guide your loco into curves, just as the prototype does. ​

That is absolutely correct Russ. I did mention the fact that it should be a Mk2 National in the post.

Twenty or so years ago I decided to build a model of the NIR Railbus. As the real railbus was built using Leyland National bus parts, I purchased two Tower Models Leyland National bus kits, one red London Transport, one green London Country. I looked closely at the bus kits, and decided that there were not enough windows of the right size to build the railbus, so the project was shelved, and the kits consigned to the junk box. More recently, while having a sort out, I came across the unbuilt kits, now robbed of parts for other road vehicles, and decided it was time to dispose of them. However, it suddenly came to me that the BREL Pacer was a development of the railbus, and it too used Leyland National bus parts. A quick check revealed that the Hornby Pacer had windows of the correct size, but it would require two bodies to give the correct number of windows for the railbus. Two bodies were obtained and examined. Sure enough, with a bit of cut and shut, the two sides could be produced for the railbus. However, the roof profile was totally incorrect, and was too wide. It was decided to make up the sides only from the Pacer bodies, and use the roofs from the bus kits, suitably shortened and spliced together, plus the two front ends. Apart from the doors, the Pacer sides were not deep enough, so plastic strip was used to extend the depth of the sides. All the parts were assembled, but the bus roof heating units were not correct for the railbus. The Pacer one was, so one unit was removed from a Pacer roof, and fitted to the railbus. It was also discovered that the Pacer doors were not the correct pattern for the railbus, so the Pacer doors were removed, and those from the kits were spliced in instead. The pictures show the origins of parts. Red or green parts are from the bus kits, orange or brown are from the Pacer bodies, and white is additional plastic, except for the white line above the windows which was part of the Pacer livery. The Pacer underframe was totally unsuitable for the railbus, except for the axleboxes, so these were cut out, and along with black plasticard, and white plastic strip, used to build the railbus underframe. Motorising was the most difficult bit, as I did not want anything protruding into the passenger compartment, so everything had to fit below the floor. Four different transmission systems were tried, driving one axle, and eventually one was found that was not too fast, slow or noisy. A small Mashima motor and flywheel powers the railbus. Hornby Deltic wheels were used with a three point suspension system to ensure the best possible contact with the rails. The Deltic wheels were used as they are plated and stay clean longer, they also have a wider tyre which makes for smoother running through point frogs, and the flange is slightly coarser than Jackson Romford wheels which helps such a long wheelbase vehicle negotiate sharp curves. A sound decoder has been fitted, again below the floor, but the speaker is fitted inside the roof. Connection to the decoder is by phosphor bronze strip fitted to the inside of a window pillar on each side. It is thin enough and narrow enough to allow the glazing units to be fitted over it, so no wires within the passenger compartment. Thin wires connect the top of the strips to the speaker, and the decoder is attached to the bottom. The sound is generic, having been taken from the ESU website and modified to be acceptable in conjunction with video footage taken of the railbus on the DCDR, in other words, sounds like a bus. Holes have been made in the railbus ends for red tail lights and white headlights, still to be fitted. The interior is made up using plasticard and the seats from the bus kits. All during the construction and testing, something bugged me about the ends of the railbus, but I could not figure out what it was. Only when it came to painting did I realise what it was. There were two versions of the Leyland National bus, the Mk1 and the Mk2. They both had similar, but different front ends, and the railbus used the Mk2 front. My bus kits were Mk1. I don’t know if Tower Models ever produced a Mk2 bus kit, but I certainly was not going to undo the work already done. Painting was done using my concoction for NIR light grey all over, and then after masking, my concoction of NIR light blue, followed by the orange panel, all sprayed. The black on the ends was masked and brush painted. Decals were made up on a PC and printed on to clear decal paper. All during the construction and testing, something bugged me about the ends of the railbus, but I could not figure out what it was. Only when it came to painting did I realise what it was. There were two versions of the Leyland National bus, the Mk1 and the Mk2. They both had similar, but different front ends, and the railbus used the Mk2 front. My bus kits were Mk1. I don’t know if Tower Models ever produced a Mk2 bus kit, but I certainly was not going to undo the work already done. Painting was done using my concoction for NIR light grey all over, and then after masking, my concoction of NIR light blue, followed by the orange panel, all sprayed. The black on the ends was masked and brush painted. Decals were made up on a PC and printed on to clear decal paper. To finish the railbus, glazing and lights need to be fitted, and the underframe completed.

Great collection of buses there Andy.

I have to agree with TurfBurner about 535 & 536. My database shows them as being MPD trailers, not MED as I said before. Can't read my own spreadsheet, a touch of dyslexia there I think. Regarding 528, I have not got any conclusive evidence about it's use after it stopped being used with 6 & 7, although my drawing says the steam heat (as used with 6 & 7) was removed in 1958, and Smiths heating installed, which is what the MEDs used. However, it returned to being a loco hauled coach in the early 1960s, so it is unlikely that it became a MPD trailer, as MPD trailers all had driving compartments, apart from catering vehicles.

The MED intermediate conversions 516-525, & 535-536 were originally 9 compartment non corridor coaches. The subject coach appears to be one of those after the later conversion to an open layout. There are three slam doors, and looking at the large windows between the doors, and at each end, these would correspond to where the original slam doors and two small windows would have been. Three slam doors plus six large windows making nine seating bays. All the other MED intermediates were either new builds, or 526 & 527 both of which were always centre corridor vehicles with four doors each side. 528 was also a non corridor MED trailer, but had 10 compartments.

It must be remembered that railcars 6 & 7 were experimental, and were, in fact, converted from J10 coaches of late 1930s vintage with very little physical modification, hence the beading. MEDs 8 to 13 were also built from Class J10 coaches, but, as production models, were more heavily modified with power operated doors and flush sides.

I have been looking at the profile of the front of 6 & 7, and the MEDs. The cab front is flat from side to side, but vertically it has a curve from top to bottom just as in the drawing. There is a good picture showing this in 'The UTA in Colour' P91. If you look closely at the window pillars, you can see the curved body profile against the flat glass of the windows. The profile of the front of these railcars is nothing like the AECs.

That's right, Malone Road was 71, 7 was Greencastle.