thegreenhowards

Hi Brian, Thanks for the information above. I'd come to the conclusion that a MK1 FO was the best bet since I posted and I've started adapting the roof from a Replica FO (didn't want to chop up a £30+ Hornby coach!). I hadn't realised about the blanking off on the corridor side, but the Parkin book diagram suggest that you're right so I'll have go look at that. Thanks for the tip. I also started with the Southern Pride offerings and have finished the FO E3084 - some photos are on my workbench thread here https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/135510-coulsdon-works/&do=findComment&comment=3537503 I also have E3083 well on the way and the Cravens pair as kits but not yet started. Regards Andy

David, It's a DJH kit. I can't claim any credit for it. I bought it from Rails at Warley 2017. The box says built by M.G. Jose 2010. Regards Andy

Still no corridor connectors to finish the Elizabethan - I think Easter has delayed their dispatch. So I've been finishing off a project I started a good year ago, and then left in a drawer with just the roof to paint - do other people do that sort of thing?! Anyway this is one of the 1957 Mark 1 prototypes. In this case a Mark 1 FO, E3084, built with just six bays of seats rather than the normal seven. The sides are produced by Southern Pride pre-printed on plastic with lining already applied. All that is left to do is apply the number, door furniture and source the rest of the coach. These sides fit directly into an old style Hornby Mk 1 (the type with the two screws through the floor) which can be sourced for a couple of quid. So all I had to do was to build an interior (Southern Pride parts) and detail the roof with the correct vents. It's not the finest quality, but as a quick method for producing an unusual coach, I think it works quite well. I can now form the 0743 York to Kings Cross from 1959 as per the carriage workings (other coaches are RTR except for a Mk 1 BSO built in the same way as E3084 from Southern Pride kits some time ago). I believe this was booked for a York A2/3 which I don't have (yet), so a New England one will have to do instead (please excuse the half complete scenery). ...and just to show that E3084 is actually in the formation!

I used Halford’s etch primer and ford burgundy red paint. Then modelmaster transfers for the lining and numbers and CCT transfers for the roundels. Then a coat of Halford’s gloss lacquer to seal it on the SK. The lacquer has reacted slightly with the lining on the SK, so on the buffet I put the lacquer on first followed by the transfers and I think that worked better. I like the high gloss finish for the Elizabethan, but probably not suitable for everything. Halford’s bumper grey for the roof and humbrol satin black (after masking) for the valence over the solebar.

Thanks David, They’re certainly much easier and quicker than those Thompson sleepers...although not so satisfying! Andy

Tony, I understand your frustration, and I have to say that one of my least favourite jobs is fitting a DCC chip to kit built locos. It often takes a while, and I have had a couple which don’t run as well on DCC. I have also had many RTR locos which run better on DCC. This probably helps to explain why you hate DCC and many other modellers love it. I’ve said this before, but for a roundy roundy layout with 100s of kit built locos (I.e. LB), DC is the only sensible choice, whereas for a newly built terminus layout with lots of shunting and RTR locos, then DCC is the obvious choice. For me, I’m happy to invest a moderate amount of dosh in a system that I (largely) understand and which enables me to simplify wiring and recreate the sound of long lost engines in my loft. I think we we have to agree to disagree! Andy

Tony, Thanks for showing your Talisman. I also built my twin FO before I knew about the door issue and that's how it will stay. Even if building it today, I'm not sure I'd fancy tackling the doors in the Mailcoach sides. They're not exactly made for kit bashing! One point about your Talisman rake. The front vehicle looks like a Mark 1 BSK. The carriage workings list both end vehicles as BSOs, certainly for 1958, and also for the other years that I've checked. I remember this as I spent some time building the Southern Pride kits before Hornby announced their BSO. So could I suggest you swap it over? Having said this, I half expect you to counter me with some photographic evidence to prove that BSKs were used on the day! Regards Andy

Tony, For someone who is never happier than when a soldering iron is in his hand, I can't help thinking, that you're complaining a little too much about sorting out four wires! As for people's inability to fit DCC chips, I couldn't agree more, especially when it has a socket...but I don't think that's DCC's fault. It's the same issue as people being unprepared to change a loco's number or weather it. In fact it could be related to your point last week about all the fragile detail bits. Some people are afraid to take the loco apart for fear of breaking something. I know I've broken small pipes off when getting a loco apart, but nothing that some superglue wouldn't fix. Andy

Tony, It is possible to change the number of bears per revolution on a full spec DCC chip. I know this because I’ve just done it on an L1 to which I fitted a B1 chip - there being no L1 to record, a B1 seemed like the closest comparator. My chip is no pretty well synchronised, with ‘chuffs’ , coasting and bring at the right times I suspect it may not be possible on the much cheaper TTS chips which Hornby often factory fit. You get what you pay for - To me, they’re OK for diesel but rather too basic for steam. I don’t suppose this will change your mind on sound (!), but I felt I should explain that it is possible to sychonise these things correctly. Andy

I’ve been continuing with finishing off projects over Easter, and two more coaches are more or less finished. They are the SK with Ladies Retiring Room and Buffet from the Elizabethan. These two coaches will allow me to complete my 1957 version of the train. This was the last year in which these two coaches were in the train. The SK went to the Heart of Midlothian in 1958 and I’m not sure what happened to the buffet. They are both made from Southern Pride sides on a Bachmann donor. The buffet interior is quite unusual with a small eating area of 1+1 seating and a side passageway. I made it up using Southern Prides seats and windows, plasticard for the buffet counter and a Hornby Buffet detailing pack that I got on eBay from a company called LHP. The SK with LRR interior is just painted Bachmann. No need to model the LRR as it has white windows (and I don’t know what it looked like anyway!). Underframes are standard Bachmann except that they have MJT heavy duty bogies as did all coaches in the Elizabethan. just waiting for corridor connectors to finish them off, then I will post a video of the complete train. Andy

Hello, I thought I’d reawaken this thread to pose a question about Doncaster prototype SK number E25457 which was used on the White Rose from 1959 through to the early 1960s. In particular I want to model it during the period when ‘DELTIC’ was working on the train. Does anyone know of a kit for this coach or have any suggestions on how to model it. It had seven compartments rather than the eight on a normal SK and a toilet at each end. It’s frustratingly similar to a standard FK, but has a central door on the compartment side. Regards Andy

I’ve also been trying to create some pipe loads. They’re not quite finished, but I’m quite pleased with how they look. They're based on some photos of Stanton pipe trains and I need some lettering to write ‘Stanton’ on the side but I’m not sure of the font, so they will stay unlettered for now. I’ve also been finishing off some steel pipe loads based on McDonalds straws panted in red oxide primer. Here is a video of my pipe and steel train in action. The wagons should probably be split between a number of separate trains, but this shows them all off.

Tony, A lovely collection of dining cars! I also suffer from evostick under the cornice. I think the best approach is to let it dry thoughourly and then rub it off. Definitely don’t try to remove when wet as the paint comes off with it! How do I know this?...... All the best Andy

Here is a photo of my latest finished build. A Thompson RSO for my Talisman rake. It's made from Mousa sides on a Bachmann donor coach and painted in Ford Burgundy red from Halfords. Transfers are from Modelmaster. The complete rake is mainly kit built with two Southern Pride Mk 1 BSOs, a Mailcoach twin FO and a Comet RF on Bachmann donor and just two Bachmann RTR Mark 1s. The other coaches were completed several years ago and a Comet RSP has been standing in for the RSO. A short (20 secs) video of the train in action is shown here.

I'm having a concentrated effort to finish a few projects which have been on the go for far too long...in some cases over a year. The first to be finished is a Mousa models RSO for my Talisman rake (only started in November so not bad by my standards!). This will replace a RSP which has been running in the rake for far too long, because when I first completed the rake I'd never heard of Mousa Models (!) and had to make do with the closest match that Comet could provide. The rake is now complete running as it was in 1957/8. The coach is shown here. It's made from Mousa sides on a Bachmann donor coach and painted in Ford Burgundy red from Halfords. Transfers are from Modelmaster. A video of the rake in action on my layout, Gresley Junction is here.

Morning Andrew, Well I should obviously do more thorough research before building a coach! Though as 'sir' wasn't aware of the curious design criteria I don't feel too embarrassed! There were only 10 of these built before they switched to the more common BTK(4) so obviously the pressure from pole vaulting teams wasn't keeping the LNER in business! I'm intrigued by your comment about them being used on the Norseman which, as you say, is a fascinating formation...not least because it seemed to be different every day. The carriage workings suggest 4 compartment brakes, Thompson in the early '50s becoming Mark 1 later on. The pictures I can find in a quick look this morning show 4 compartment brakes as per the carriage workings, so I'd be interested in any evidence you have of the 3 compartment version working (maybe when the Norwegian pole vaulting team was visiting!). I was planning to use the coach on a relief formation as the carriage workings only show them on FO/ SO and Q trains, but I'm sure they would have stood in for BSK(4)s on occasion. Regards Andy

Andrew, That coach looks superb. Is it for LSGC? If so I look forward to seeing it in action. I may be dim, but I don’t get the pole vaulter reference! Andy

Many thanks to all for the comprehensive responses, especially all those photos from Tony - much appreciated. It does look like they were either lined all the way across or not at all, but I suspect that Bachmann would have had a prototype for their decision to line above the compartments, but not the brake, so maybe all three approaches existed. I think that, like Tony, I may leave off the top lining next time and save myself some time.

Can I ask a question to the BR(E) great and good on this thread? I am finishing off a D.331 Thompson BTK(3) (Comet sides on Bachmann donor), and I’m stuck with the lining. I can’t determine whether the upper lining should be continued above the brake compartment and if not, where it should stop. I have found photos which seem to show lining there, but others on which it is not evident, and I note that Bachmann did not line above the brake compartment on their old maroon Thompsons. Was there a date on which policy changed from not lining to lining, or am I just seeing things in the photos? As you can see below, I have continued the lining, but I’m now having doubts! PS. Photo is work in progress. Roof, glazing and stepboards still to be addressed. Many thanks Andy

Tony, I’ve been thinking carefully about how to reply to this because I’m caught in a dilemma. I cannot argue with your reasoning that if one is exhibiting, it ought to be right.....however, I think this is a case where the best can be the enemy of the good. Let me explain. Everyone has a limited amount of time for modelling. For some it’s a lot more than others, but railway modelling is very time consuming and choices have to be made. At an exhibition I would rather see large layouts of the LB, LSGC, Grantham, Liverpool Lime Street type rather than BLTs. If a limited amount of time is to be spent, it’s likely that the large layout will be less detailed than the BLT. But I know I’d rather see an ‘impressionist’ large layout than a perfectly finished BLT. Obviously, if a team has the time then a perfect large layout is better still, but let’s not put people off large layouts by imposing the highest standards on all exhibited layouts. As for using RTR out of the box, I’m totally in agreement with you. I go mainly to see the trains, and the layout is just a stage, (albeit a time consuming and often exquisite one). So I want to see prototypical formations and realistic looking stock. I’m happy for much of it to be modified RTR provided the work has gone into creating accurate formations. I think your kind of constructive criticism is very helpful and ought to be welcomed by any modeller. E.g. did you know that that A4 has the wrong kind of tender, or the use of lower case on the signal box. I have been on the receiving end of several of your ‘you clot’ moments, and I have found them useful, if slightly frustrating at the time. Criticism, such as you don’t have any point rodding, or your signals don’t work would be less appreciated, as presumably the exhibitor knows that! It would be fair, of course, to say in justification of a judging decision. One area where I disagree, as you know, is tension locks. Yes, they’re ugly, but so is every other coupling system. If someone invents a radio controlled miniature shunter who runs around the layout coupling and uncoupling scale couplings, then I’ll convert. Until then, everything is a compromise and tension locks work. I’ll hide them where I can (e.g. remove from the front of tender locos, use corridor connectors to cover them up, occasionally replace with a wire loop on tank engines, use 3 links in the middle of fixed formation goods), but I’m not going to waste ages on changing over to another system which is only marginally less of a compromise. All the best and keep on driving standards up. Andy

Tony, That looks very good, the bodysides are commendably smooth and the roof looks convincing. The only significant issue I can see is the join between the body and the roof, which is always a problem. I tend to have a couple of goes at filling and filing before I’m happy. If anyone on here knows a trick to speed this up I’d love to hear it. Happy modelling! Andy

Tony, Good to see you’re posting again. Send my best wishes to Rebecca. Did you manage to sort out some brass strip for the hinges? As for cutting away ...be brutal! The plastic that’s left gets in the way of glazing, and you only need to leave enough to provide a minimum of support to the brass sides. It’s a good idea to retain the bits which which fasten the body to the chassis if possible, but sometimes that’s part of the glazing and has to be replaced. Good luck. Andy

I do like a baby Deltic even though I’m too young to have seen one. They’re one of the reasons I model the South end of the ECML. Is that the first time we’ve seen her on PN? Nice subtle weathering on the loco.

I definitely prefer it unstopped.

I love the picture of the 9F sweeping in. I think it might look better if you blacked out the area under the bridge instead of giving a grey/ white sky look.