31A

Sorry Pete, can't spot that one! It's nothing to do with 'Mallory Vib*****s' either (p 53); turn to p 44-47.

Hi both, Thanks for the query and sorry for taking a while to answer - I hadn't realised people had been posting into this thread! Although I should perhaps have realised when I started receiving 'Like' ratings again for it - thanks for those, too! Jamie is quite right, the office building is made from the DPM 'MT Arms' hotel kit; as I've made it into a low relief building, I was able to increase the frontage by adding the sides to the front. Some of the other buildings behind the station were also bashed from DPM kits; if you choose them carefully several are quite easy to 'Anglicise' mainly by adding new roofs and chimneys. However the smaller ones (not particularly the office block) were only intended as stop gaps as I think taller buildings would be more appropriate for this location. I think I may well have bought some of them form M. G. Sharp many years ago, but not sure I'd recommend this supplier these days - there is a thread on them in the Model Shop Guide section. More recently I've bought American building kits from Model Junction, Slough and they have some DPM kits on their web site (although not the MT Arms hotel at the moment). Which leads on neatly to a quick update from Finsbury Square. At the time I posted this topic, some people were kind enough to suggest the layout should be in a magazine, which was flattering and kind of them, but I deliberately didn't show much of the right hand corner of the layout - the goods yard area - which had festered in a state of indecision for too long, and become a dumping ground for various random buildings. So recently, I've been concentrating on getting this area up to scratch and the centrepiece is a railway goods warehouse cobbled together from an Atlas 'Middlesex Manufacturing' kit. The building is just about finished but the area is still a 'work in progress', but I'll put up some pictures and a fuller story in due course - in the meantime, let's say Rod Stewart is to blame which may be a bit of a clue for some of you!

For the maroon van I built from a Parkside kit (see post #49) I used Modelmasters Minipack 8006 for the running number, and the 'XP', wheelbase and tare weight markings, with CCT© and the dimensional data coming from the HMRS Methfix sheet 14. I believe the dimensional data on this sheet really applies to a standard BR CCT, but they were very similar and the lettering is tiny anyway! I also replaced the word 'TARE' from the Modelmasters sheet with the version from the HMRS sheet, as the Modelmasters version has it in lower case ('Tare') which I don't think is correct for other than blue livery.

No, I believe all the windows should be glazed; I was trying to explain this in post #48.

OK, the photography didn't take long - here's a few quick snaps, with two vans built from Parkside kits in the background for comparison. View from above. The Parkside kit's roof is plain so I've added vents, lamp fittings and rain strips to the kit built ones myself; I must admit the position of the rain strips is 'guestimated' to some extent and Hornby's is no doubt more accurate. You can see that the middle lamp fitting on the Hornby version isn't pushed right down. I haven't managed to break into the van yet to see whether this can be improved, but in reality it probably isn't worth bothering with. A couple of side views. My camera / lighting combination doesn't do BR 'crimson' any favours; in reality the Hornby van doesn't appear so garish and seems to be the same colour used for the ex LMS van, and some weathering will tone it down further. Underside view: For those who are interested, the 'factory code' on the box is TAL.

I picked up one of these from Monk Bar Models in York this afternoon - BR version R6683, E1341E. First impressions were good, but I was surprised to find only half the windows glazed! The outer pairs of windows are glazed, but the pairs of windows between the doors are moulded solid. On closer inspection there seems to be a faint representation of the mesh covering over these windows that can be seen in some pictures (and hinted at in Nick Campling's drawing reproduced in Tatlow's 'Historic Carriage Drawings vol. 3), although I believe in reality this was fitted inside the glazing. On the plus side, the body is neatly moulded, with handrails neatly moulded as part of the body. The solebars carry the upper and lower stepboards as separate fittings (the lower ones are particularly vulnerable on the Parkside kit), and a good representation of the LNER fitted stock brake gear, with the reversing linkage on one side and the vacuum cylinder on the other. Unlike the LMS van, as well as the cross shaft, there are representations of the pull rods leading out towards the brake shoes. The brake shoes are neatly in line with the wheels, but there are no yokes fitted. The wheelsets themselves run in the same inside bearing arrangement as the SR Van C - presumably this is intended to impart some degree of compensation to improve the road holding of the long wheelbase? Nevertheless the vehicle seems quite free running, although not very heavy. On the ends, the buffers are unsprung but have neat metal heads with correctly 'clipped' tops, and the buffer bodies look accurate in shape. The lamp irons are integrally moulded, but there are vacuum 'bags' below the headstocks, as per the LMS CCT. On the roof, the torpedo ventilators are moulded as part of the roof rather than being separate items; however they don't look out of place. The circular oil lamp tops (or covers?) however are separate mouldings - on mine, one wasn't pushed right down. The Parkside model makes no provision for these fittings. According to the 1974 RCTS Coaching Stock book these vans were oil lit, although I wonder whether that actually still applied in 1974?! The livery uses the same shade of red as the ex LMS CCT, WR Horsebox, etc., and the lettering is neatly applied in yellow on the right hand end, much more neatly than I've managed to achieve with transfers! The solebars carry white printed representations of the number plates, as well as exam dates and the vac release star symbol. The roof has a realistically matt (if rather light) grey finish. I'll try and take some photos later and post them up.

What a fascinating collection of coaches in those trains! Several views of Tourist Stock twins (in one case with bulging plywood panelling), and various pre-Grouping types. Looks as though in the post war period it was a case of making up trains with anything that could turn a wheel!

I like the 9F shot (J165) in particular; for some reason it reminds me of a George Heiron painting such as were on the covers of 'Model Railway News' around that time!

What a variety of wagons in C5897 - the whole span of coal hoppers, almost - from wooden to air braked!

Yes quite right Horsetan - a bit O/T but hopefully will get away with a brief explanation - pending arrival of proper signals I made some non working (hopefully LNER-esque) colour lights using Ratio posts and Knightwing signal heads, and added discs and roller blind route indicators as appropriate.

I remember my K's kit built large Atlantic used to yaw about all over the place, not helped by the fact that one of the Romford drivers was distinctly out of true! I eventually cured it by rearranging the bogie pivot arrangement - originally this was attached by a simple 'swing link' as per elderly Triang locos. I made a central slot in the bogie through which a retaining bolt passed, but also made a vertical pin above the centreline of the rear bogie axle locating into a corresponding hole underneath the loco (drilled into the rear part of the cylinder block casting), and the bogie was then able to pivot around this - in other words, the leading bogie axle could swing from side to side, but the rear one could only pivot about its axis. This cured the yawing almost completely, despite the wonky driving wheel! This was actually a side effect of my intention, which was to make roadholding more reliable by preventing the bogie wheels coming into conflict with the frames & cylinders; I achieved this as well. The rear carrying axle ran in a slotted bearing with minimal sideplay and wires bearing on it to provide some downward springing. This sounds like the kind of thing Miss Prism is suggesting. Not sure about 'toy train' curves but there will have been some Peco small radius Streamline points on the layout it ran on which probably qualify as such and caused it no bother. I've just dug it out to have a look, and can report that there is a (very slight) joggle in the con. rods but this is to get them over the leading crank pins, there being minimal clearance between the slide bars and crossheads and the leading drivers, and there is a straight piece of lining on the rear splasher where it meets the firebox!

With that cab, you might be better off waiting for the Brighton version and repainting it (only joking-there were lots of other differences!)! Some of the 'variants' would make very attractive models though, such as the 'outside Walschaerts' 3279, or 4419 with side window cab and booster engine.

Hi 2750, I do apologise! I got the impression that there might be a misconception developing that there were 'early' and 'late' tenders and wanted to make the point (although probably didn't need to quote your post in order to do so) that it was rather that there were different types of tender that were used contemporaneously (how's that for a word!). I wrote the post quickly and without much forethought, prior to going out for the day.

I don't think it's fair to categorise the different types of tender as 'early' or 'late' particularly depending on hand hold cut outs (or other features) - I think it's more that some locos had one type while others had the other, both of which were used throughout the 'Atlantic's' careers (and no doubt they got swapped around between locos during their lives). I used to know more about this than I do now, having several GN locos in my '1930s' collection, but I'm afraid I've forgotten most of what I knew! I was having a quick look at 'Locomotives Illustrated' no. 14 last night (appreciate not a lot of people may have that!), and for example 1401 pictured at Nottingham Victoria, said to be 'about 1923' but with the loco in GN livery, has a tender with hand hold cutouts, while 1422 photographed at the same place, undated but also in GN livery (but with a GC tank lettered 'L&NER' in the background so presumably around 1923), has a tender with no hand holds. It's as ever, a question of finding a picture (or other record) of the loco at the time you want the model to represent, and using that.

All the very best to Locomotion, the NRM and Bachmann with this project! I've already got an Atlantic, built many years ago from a K's kit, but I'm sure it'll look pretty crude alongside one of these. One part of me hopes however that they don't all sell out too quickly, then I might be able to save up and buy one of each because at the moment I can't choose which one to order! None of them strictly fit into the time frame of my layout but I can justify any, all or none of them somehow or other.....

I think you're quite right there, Hroth! They've had R3114 (B1 61270 in BR black with late crest) as available 'on or after Friday 9th May 2014' for several months now, and there's no sign of it! Well I suppose they're not wrong.

Hi Dave, thanks for posting these pictures, which are fascinating - please keep 'em coming! I just wondered whether the DMU's destination blind in C3486 actually read 'Yarmouth'? I say that as it looks like a Norwich Division unit, with a set number on a yellow label inside the windscreen. Not what you'd expect to see at Masboro', but they could get to Sheffield (or Doncaster) on the services from various points in East Anglia via the GN&GE Joint line. Also it appears to be the last entry on the blind alphabetically as it is followed by a blank - possibly the driver intended to display the blank as he couldn't find a suitable destination for his train on the 'foreign' unit's blind?

Hi Brian, Yes, you are quite right, they were rebuilt. I'm not able to check my books at the moment, but the Southern Pride range includes 'before' and 'after' sides so I imagine the difference could be fairly fundamental visually (e.g. altered window layout). There's a drawing in the Isinglass range (no. 180); the catalogue doesn't say whether this shows as built or rebuilt (or it could well show both). Quite agree, this could be a deterrent to an RTR manufacturer, hence I've always thought I'd have to make my own, although so far it remains a pipe dream! On the other hand, the possibilty of a blue / grey version might be attractive to a manufacturer. Steve

I was hoping someone would mention those! Last pre BR Mk1 design passenger carrying hauled stock, I believe, and although built for the 'Scotsman', later used singly in more 'layout friendly' secondary expresses (e.g. Cambridge Buffet Express). I've been pondering making one from a Southern Pride / Bachmann combination for a long time - perhaps if I ponder long enough, an RTR one will beat me to it.

Hi Bob, this seems to be a divisive subject among modellers, but hopefully we can agree to disagree! I always prefer as many points of contact as possible on my locos for reliable running, including the tender wheels (but usually draw the line at bogie wheels). Having dismantled the Hornby Black 5 loco mechanism and then struggled to get it back together again, I was even more determined to keep tender current collection on this one, as the loco pick ups rely on surface contact between the copper strips and contacts on the loco chassis making current collection by loco alone particularly 'fragile' on this model.. This is exacerbated by the fact that the strips don't seem to be particularly securely retained in position by the keeper plate. So while in theory (especially with the sprung rear axle) loco pick up should be sufficient, I wanted the tender to collect as well as a 'belt and braces' solution. I'm sure it would be possible to 'hard wire' the loco pick ups, but I didn't fancy wielding a soldering iron in that area of the loco, and wondered how I could solder wires to the pick ups without affecting the fit of the keeper plate. Having said all that, I do appreciate that tender pick ups add drag (and my home made ones possibly more so than factory fitted), but I only need my locos to haul a maximum of six coaches on a terminus to fiddle yard layout, so perhaps my requirements aren't as demanding as other people's. As you can see from my thread on detailing the Black 5, I did have to add some weight in the smokebox to counter the lifting effects of the spring I added to keep the bogie on the road, otherwise she struggled even with five! Instinctively, this would be expected to unbalance the loco and I considered adding weight at the rear as well to counteract this and improve traction, but there doesn't seem to be much room within the boiler for it. Under the cab floor and cab roof would be possibilities, but anyway for now she does what I ask of her!

Hi Iain, all I can say is, give it a go, you'll probably find it isn't as hard as you think. I've found the square end of a small steel rule (used as a scraper) is quite a good tool for taking the bulk of the plastic off quite quickly and if you were happy to leave visible traces of the weld seams on the roof, you could probably leave it at that. If anything, I've found the Bachmann gangwayed vehicles easier as they can be completely dismantled so that you can work on the roof independently of the rest of the vehicle and then re-spray it easily before reassembly. I can understand if you've got a lot to do it seems a daunting prospect, becoming a boring repetitive task after you've done a few, and I must admit I've only done a proportion of my fleet so far! Talking of repetitive tasks, I've fitted Laserglaze to one of my non gangwayed coaches so far and have several more to do! I'm interested to hear that you had to dress the panes as I had to do more of this than I expected, but put it down to the fact that I'd painted the coach in question (having used several coats to get anything like a decent finish, due to ineptitude and impatience!) so I thought that in the process I'd made the apertures quite a bit smaller than they originally were. Did you find you had to do this on coaches which are still in the 'factory finish', or have you repainted yours as well?

Nice work on these coaches, Iain! Good luck with the bow pen. As you say, the Replica underframe fittings and laserglaze bring a big improvement to the Bachmann BR non gangwayed coaches (I've got several to do), but I wondered whether you'd considered removing or reducing the moulded ridges on the roofs? In reality these are barely visible - it's quite easy to do but results in a big improvement IMHO.

Fascinating pictures as always Dave; C3009 in particular takes me back to my misspent youth!

My late father referred to them as 'boards', which came from his father who was a signalman on the GN / LNE / BR(E) initially in the Doncaster area but for most of his career in North London.

Brilliant!!