Glover

The GNR(I) built three J11 tri-compos. On the break up of the company in 1957, one went to the UTA and two to CIE. All remained in service until about 1970. Given the amount of spare bits left over from building the UTA coach, I decided to build another; this may be used in evidence to suggest that, when it comes to modelling, I may not be the full shilling! One improvement was to modify the doors by extending the height while bringing the bottom of the door window up above the general window line. This does help to improve the overall GNR 'look' of the coach. This photo might explain better.

Thanks Kirley, I have used Fox's numerals but I was thinking more about the 'script' type typography which the UTA used. Railtec do UTA transfers but they are really for railcars and, to my eye, are too large for coaches. I should also say that I have been taken to task, by a recognised expert, on my use of yellow for lining UTA coaches. It should apparently be a creamy beige. In my defence, I would say that virtually all colour photos from the UTA green period (1950-1965 approx) indicate that it was yellow but that may very well be a reflection of colour photography of the time. Because of this, I used yellow on previous UTA builds, so have opted for consistency. I can also offer the excuse that as a Dubliner, my exposure to the UTA was limited. Thanks also for the first-aid tip! I note that this allows modelling to continue, despite the bloodshed. Spoken like a true modeller! Cheers, Glover

After all this carnage (and the danger of becoming addicted to plastic cement fumes), you may end up with this: an ex-GNR J11 tri-compo brake, in UTA green. I have numbered it 259; it should in fact be 258 but I didn't have the correct numerals. By the way, can anyone recommend a source for UTA coach numerals? For your pleasure/amusement , here it is.

I reckon there were something like 14 major cut 'n shuts per side plus many minor ones. The small rectangular windows in the 3rd class section are a real pain. The pain is even worse when you cut yourself.......I should have taken a photo of that but it's hard to think of that when you're bleeding to death from a scalpel wound! Anyway, if that happens to you, I advise that you wipe the blood from the model before it dries. And then deal with the wound. Some shots from the front line.

I am for ever grateful to those photographers and note takers who paid attention to what came behind the locomotives. Foremost among these was the late Norman Johnson who founded Colourpoint Books. Norman's posthumous book, "Parting Shot" contains a number of photos of a GNR(I) J11 tri-compo brake. The GNR offered 1st, 2nd and 3rd class until 1950 when they abolished 2nd. Thus the coach offered compartment accommodation for 1st and 2nd and an open area for 3rd. The only dimensions I had were that the brake/luggage can section was ten foot in length while the overall length was the GNR standard 58'. However , the 3rd class portion appeared to be the fairly standard GNR K15 layout and I had a drawing for that. Therefore, let battle commence. Given the number of cut 'n shuts likely to be required, I constructed a body side jig. You do learn something from reading the Model Railway Journal, even if I don't understand half of it. Note that the jig is made from cardboard, not some rare precious metal. Glover

Many years ago, a guy in one of the model shops in Dublin suggested that the then recently released Hornby (or was it Tri-ang then?) LNER Thompson coaches could be used on a GNR(I) layout. His reasoning was that the GNR(I) also used a varnished wood livery. In truth, there are more differences than similarities between the two companies coaches but with a sharp knife...... Anyway, here are the donors/ victims. Glover

I have been busy...... Much of 2017 was spent building coaches for a CIE excursion set but by definition, such stock is secondary. Therefore, in the latter part of last year, I ðecided that I needed to take a somewhat more strategic approach. To that end, I identified the need for six brake/passenger coaches for trains running through Pettigo station on my model of the old Great Northern Railway ( Ireland) Bundoran branch. Although the line closed in 1957, I have assumed that it actually stayed open at least until the summer of 1963. Operations are assumed to be shared by the Republic of Ireland's CIE and Northern Ireland's Ulster Transport Authority (UTA). I need four brake/passenger coaches for the Up and Down Bundoran Expresses ; I'm assuming that the practice of adding a brake/passenger coach at Clones, which had come down from Belfast via Portadown and Armagh, was continued and thus this would be a UTA coach with the rest of the stock being supplied by CIE. In addition, both the CIE and UTA branch trains will require a brake/passenger. OK, that's the background and rationale. Glover

That's a rather nice piece of work Noel. It does capture the look of those vans. Think I'll put it on my (long) list of things to do! Cheers Glover

Thanks Mike (ikks), If you go to the Continental/overseas section, then Irish Railways Group, on page 4 you'll see Pettigo Co Donegal which is my layout. In the same section, on page 2, you'll find Glovers Workbench which covers various rolling stock projects. Sorry for answering your question in such a ham fisted way but I've never figured out how to input the links directly! Cheers, Glover

Until I read, a good many years ago, about eye-level viewing in US model railroad magazines, I had assumed that desk/table height was the only option for a home based layout. Having built layouts since then at chest height, I can suggest three advantages: 1. Room for a workbench and storage underneath the layout. 2. More realistic viewing. Incidentally , I am always somewhat bemused when it is said that the roofs of rolling stock and buildings are the most important part as they are the most visible. Not in real life ! Ever spent hours trying to track down details for a coach roof from photographic sources? 3. If the layout is a continuous circuit, the extra height makes gaining access to the central area easier. I'm getting too old for that hands and knees caper! Photo below of my Pettigo layout. Until I read, a good many years ago, about eye-level viewing in US model railroad magazines, I had assumed that desk/table height was the only option for a home based layout. Having built layouts since then at chest height, I can suggest three advantages: 1. Room for a workbench and storage underneath the layout. 2. More realistic viewing. Incidentally , I am always somewhat bemused when it is said that the roofs of rolling stock and buildings are the most important part as they are the most visible. Not in real life ! Ever spent hours trying to track down details for a coach roof from photographic sources? 3. If the layout is a continuous circuit, the extra height makes gaining access to the central area easier. I'm getting too old for that hands and knees caper! Photo below of my Pettigo layout.

Mark ( Humphrys), I have just one problem with your post: it should be an article in MRJ! It is very interesting to hear a top class modeller talk about his journey to higher standards. You've certainly progressed much further than I suspect most of us but your achievements do act as inspiration to those 'hammer & chisel' modellers like me. Cheers, Glover

Available in Easons, O'Connell Street, Dublin this morning. The article on the Tralee & Dingle Railway is based on part of the station which served the village of Annascaul . I know this village well; a friend has a holiday home there. I took a photo last year of the old water tank. Stone counters can compare and contrast with Roger Birds' excellent model! Cheers, Glover

A programme on BBC4 TV tonight ( Monday Feb 19) at 23.00 might provide some answers: " How the Celts saved Britain". Cheers, Glover PS : I am heartened to hear that the art of good pub conversations is still alive!

Very nice work Scott. I will be interested to see how the bogies work out. I built a set, from plastic, many years ago but, let's say, the likes of Hornby, Bachmann etc seem to be better at it! Best of luck. Glover

Nice card Noel; evidence of a busy year on your workbench. Seasonal greetings to you and indeed to all who frequent, and contribute, to this little part of the forum. Cheers, Glover

A moment of piece for a 'Quiet Man'! Nice touch Kirley. Cheers, Glover

Is that a sack or two of spuds I see on the footplate?! Lovely job David. Glover

Kirley, in regard to your query re windows in the BUT trailers, the only photo I can put my hand on at the moment is on page 69 of the late Norman Johnstons "Parting Shot". It's a partial shot of a L12 brake third in the NIR blue & cream livery, in a BUT set. The windows visible in the guards van section were clear although there would appear to be horizontal bars behind the windows, presumably to protect the glass, from luggage,parcels etc. Norman identifies the coach as being either 591 or 592. The photo was taken in 1968. Hope this helps. Glover

That's an amazing amount of information Jeremy; hats off to you and your memory! It certainly seems to support Kirleys internal layout. Kirley, sorry but it sounds like I might just have created a bit more work for you! Cheers, Glover

Kirley, The interior layout of your L12 brake/third has been puzzling me, although I don't doubt you have done your research. Did the GNR, when they modified these coaches to run with the BUT railcars reduce the amount of passenger space? Possible but another possibility is mentioned in an article in the current issue of New Irish Lines. Apparently, the GNR fitted what is described as heating plant into these coaches. If they used former passenger space, then that would explain the use of sliding vent windows in this area. It also begs the questions: was there an exhaust vent in the roof and was there a fuel tank added for the heating equipment? Not among the great questions of the day but interesting, to me anyway! Cheers, Glover

Noel, can I suggest fitting South East Finecast flush glazing to your Lima conversion? Given the amount of work you have put into this, I think it would finish the job on a high note. Cost is £2.50 per coach plus postage. Web address is www.sefinecast.co.uk A good many years ago, I converted a couple of Lima Mk2s into Cravens (shortened,widened etc) and fitted flush glaze windows. As you say, the Lima plastic is quite thick; I think these windows improved the look. Note that all of this was pre the Murphy Models Cravens! Cheers, Glover

Kirley, standard GNR bogies in the steel clad era ( from the mid 1930s) were 10' wheelbase. I don't know of anything suitable to that length, so I use the Bachmann LMS bogie. Lovely work on those coaches. Both the brake/passenger coaches were quite generous in terms of the amount of space given over to the guards van section. In the case of the L12, it almost looks like the GNR used the standard K15 coach window layout, even though some of them were in the van section. Cheers, Glover

"......in the heat of a summer...." Em, we're talking about Ireland here! Although they do say that the summers were better then. Interesting (?) point is that Irish diesel locos never carried carriage heating equipment, at least until the arrival of the 201 class, which I gather has caused all sorts of bother on the Enterprise service between Dublin/ Belfast over the years. Instead, heating vans/coaches were used but there was a 'season'. Given that most layouts are set in the summer, there is no need to include a specific heating coach. Cheers, Glover

You obviously know your aviation history Noel! You are correct; I think the aircraft were known as RomBAC's within the trade. Cheers, Glover

Many thanks Kirley. Yes, the Ian Kirk coach is the 8 compartment third. I think these kits have been off the market for many years. A pity as they could form the basis of GNR(I) 'look-a likes'. Cheers, Glover