thegreenhowards

Thanks Tony, I’ll drop you a PM with some thoughts in a few days. I will definitely take you up on your photography offer. One of the problems I have is that there are few places on Gresley Jn where I can photograph a full 11+ coach train to good effect. That’s one reason why I take so many videos for my Gresley Jn thread - it’s the best way of showing the full formation. Regards Andy Andy

John, I have the same problem with pre BR stock. The CWN clearly designates Mark 1s but older stock is more difficult to fathom. Sometimes, particularly in the early ‘50s, they are marked as ‘Transverse corridor’ (aka Thompson) or ‘End door Vehicle’ (certain Gresleys) and sometimes one can tell from the number of compartments or weight of the vehicle but often it’s guesswork or relying on photos. In practice I think that they were often used interchangeably, particularly in the less prestigious trains, so we’re only reflecting the prototype when we do the same. As for your shortening of trains to six vehicles, I can appreciate that is necessary for many people but personally I would find it hard to reflect the character of an ECML express with more than a very minor trim. Losing an SK or two in a rake which has several is fine, but shortening the catering core would destroy the character for me. This would be particularly difficult when the catering is formed of a triplet! Regards Andy

Tony(s), My response was a bit flippant and Tony T has hit the nail on the head. I got into kit building coaches by tackling a couple of SP BSOs to make a semi realistic rake. A series of articles which took the reader from RTR only, through a rake with a couple of brass sides and culminating in the Lizzie or similar would draw the reader in gently without seeming too daunting at first. I’d write it myself based on my experiences if anyone was interested! Andy

Of course! And and as I model the 1957 formation, this is one of the rare occasions when I can say mine’s bigger than yours! 10 of Dave’s excellent brass side conversions with a Mark 1 BCK on the back. Here’s a video of it in action on Gresley Jn. I’ve also got several of his Mark 1 prototype kits and I’ve built a few but haven’t got round to the Cravens yet. I’d buy it! Regards Andy

This evening I feature the 1719 Royston -KX which was a standard corridor 6 set with three non corridor seconds added at Hitchin. The CWN suggests that this is the only working of the day for this set. Empty from Cambridge to Royston, work to KX and then empty to Holloway. It’s no wonder the railways lost money with utilisation like that! This evening it’s headed by class 24, D5054, here approaching Gresley Jn. and at rest in platform 5. Here’s the video, which is the only way you’ll be able to see that I actually added the strengthening on the rear if

I hesitate to mention the main culprit on here by name but it’s not one of the ones you read! I’m sure the situation is better now and some trains can be modelled accurately. However, I don’t think there are many ECML expresses in the ‘50s which could be modelled using RTR completely. Think of all the catering and the Mark 1 prototypes. Even on the Heart of Midlothian which was all Mark 1 in the early ‘50s, the RSO and RK need to be built from kits. It has to be said that the Hornby BSO and FO have helped considerably. I think the situation gets easier from the sixties onwards. Pullmans would probably be possible now, but even then the Hornby wooden K Type is very generic and, while correct for some cars, many cars were different. I don’t remember any acknowledgement of inaccuracies but it’s a while since I read one. I loved the sort of article that you (and others) used to do about forming up a train from a mix of RTR with some kit building thrown in. The exchanges that you, Tim and Gilbert had on Pullmans on here/ PN a few years back were inspirational and I’ve drawn heavily from them for my Pullman rakes. Regards Andy

I meant no offence to you. But I do get annoyed when magazines present train formations which I know to be wrong or, at best, unusual, in order to be able to represent a train with RTR coaches. I would like magazines to set a good example. What an individual modeller does is up to them and if you’ve represented trains correctly then I’m delighted. That’s what I look for more than anything when I look at a layout. Andy

I think we should distinguish between bad names and names of bad people. I quite like Oliver Cromwell as a name for a loco. Whatever you think of him he was a key figure in English history.

Tony, That makes sense, I didn’t realise quite how tall it was! I still think it would need some extra support. These days it would be covered in chicken wire or gabbion baskets but I don’t know what they did in the 1940s. Andy

It’s both 4mm and 7mm Andy so your suggestion was very valid. My interest is more in the 7mm stuff but I’m still finding my feet in the larger scale - hence the question.

You could be right as I haven’t got a copy of the diagrams here. It just doesn’t look quite like I remember it.

Tony, That looks over steep to me. Have you considered a retaining wall ( perhaps just for the lower section) which might look more credible? Andy

That looks like a mainline variant with luggage compartments? What happened to the D.156 in the book I sent you?

Boadicea. Sorry it’s upside down - no idea why!

I have over 100 Bachmann and Hornby Mark 1s. It was doing all that lot which needed the more cost effective solution (75% done now). For a one off on a kit built coach the extra money is not an issue. It’s only come up now because of trying to fit Hunt couplings and how they interact with the corridor connectors.

I totally agree with that. The articles I value most are the Steve Banks ones in Model Rail in the ‘noughties’ entitled Eastern Region secondary services in Transition. There was a series of these with prototype info one month and then how to build a model of the coach in question the following month. I’ve hunted these all down in piles of dusty mags at shows and I refer back to them often. He did other similar articles as well and there were other authors doing similar excellent reference material at the time including our very own @robertcwp. These days all we get are pathetic attempts to replicate a train using RTR coaches often twisting the facts to achieve it. I also enjoy layout articles on large layouts especially those with a GNR/ LNER/ BR(E) flavour. I don’t read the numerous ‘shunting plank’ layout descriptions. Contrary to what someone said earlier, I particularly enjoy a fleet list when it’s made available, particularly when the source of the model is explained and it’s not all RTR. Finally I love rolling stock kit building articles but I have limited interest in all the buildings and scenery constructional stuff. Anyone who’s seen my layout will know that, as far as I’m concerned, Superquick/ Metcalfe is good enough as a backdrop - it’s the trains that matter! Andy

Steve, I agree they look good when not in use but at 6 times the price, I’d need a lot of arm twisting to use them everywhere. I do have a set I picked up second hand which I may try on some end coaches. I appreciate that when finishing off an expensive kit built coach the cost is less of an issue so probably worth it. Thanks for sharing the photos . Andy

They look superb Rob, I can’t wait to get my hands on one to paint up! Andy

I presume that is 4mm only. Is there a 7mm equivalent?

So I get ‘solid’ and Peter gets ‘cracking’, I know my place! To be fair Peter’s baseboards are very good. I agree I can’t wait to get back together to run some stuff and be able to make some decisions. You are about to get a phone call from Peter about 3D printing some bigger point rodding stools.

Yep! My layout is entirely fictional but the timetable is based on Hatfield in 1958. I allow a timeframe of 1948 to early ‘60s and nothing else runs. However, I will allow friends to test stock they bring with them....provided it doesn’t have a copper clad chimney! Andy

The J52 is now finished bar weathering and is ready to enter service. The weathering will have to wait for warmer weather. A quick win for the New Year! Andy

More progress today. I turned the layout on it’s side for easy access for wiring - so much better than scrabbling around underneath the boards. I have now connected all the droppers. The end pieces of track are not fixed in because I’m waiting for the next board so I can lay across the join and cut afterwards. The points are going to be manually operated, hopefully using the DCC Concepts point rodding. So I have powered the frogs using a mix of Gaugemaster autofrogs and a Tam Valley ‘dual frog juicer’. Although I’m very pleased with the Gaugemaster autofrogs in ‘00’, I’m not sure they will be up to ‘0’ gauge as they are rated at 2Amps. Hence, I’m trying both for now and will see which works best. if the GM units are OK it will be much cheaper. Here is a closer view of the frog wiring. I’ve run out if Autfrogs for now so the two points on the other board are unpowered for now and I’m relying on the loco coasting over the dead frog. When I connected power to test it I had the dreaded short circuit. That turned out to be some solder bridging the gap on the copper clad sleeper at the baseboard edge. Obvious really but I had to undo a lot of wiring before I narrowed down the cause. I have to say the double slip wiring was very easy with autofrogs. Just connect the BUS to each frog via an autofrog and hard wire the outer rails to the BUS and it all worked perfectly. Here is a short video of my J50 testing all the track. The books are improvised buffer stops. I really need the next board before I can make much more progress as laying the track across the joint is the next job. That will lead back into the goods yard which will be in the space on the right hand side in the video. I can mock up the goods yard track but don’t want to fix anything until I’ve checked the geometry with the neighbouring board.

That’s also where I’m having the difficulties. On Bachmann close coupling Mark 1s, one concertina connector is enough to close the gap. But on kit built coaches with fixed couplings I have always used two connectors - one on each coach, to bridge the gap. This is where the Hunt close couplings are causing problems. I will try the longer ones when they arrive and if that fails I may have to resort to drastic surgery. By the way the fair price models connectors are excellent vfm at £4.20 for 12. No connection etc..... Andy