Daddyman

Harman is wrong. I'd say the fact that Bamburgh has a clipped s.box door and other Ls don't (Churchill, for example) suggests that the footplate is higher on Bamburgh, and the b.beam lower (the clipped door on Bamburgh is able to clear the low protrusion of the b.beam above footplate, whereas even a clipped door would not clear the high b.beam on a standard L). I'd say buffer centres on Churchill are about above footplate level (maybe), whereas on Bamburgh they are slightly below. The splashers on Bamburgh are barely necessary - perhaps only there to allow the wheels to spring up. The tops of the flanges seem to be level with the footplate: I started the scratchbuild trying to use the RT Models chassis, but rejected it in the end and kept only the rods. I can't remember if there was an axle height issue with the bought-in chassis, or it was just the outline that was wrong.

Don't. Just don't. Not sure, as Bamburgh is the only MW I need to know anything about... My guess would be the body is higher as a result: there seems to be less bufferbeam above the footplate on Bamburgh than on a normal L.

No: "Class L altered", with 3'6" wheels instead of 3', which means Bamburgh has splashers that normal Ls don't. Plus a Westinghouse brake.

OK, so I've been back through everything in the thread and if I've read it correctly it seems that the Hornby model can only represent 9016 as it's the only one without window frames (there's mention at one point of 9015 also being without them, the preservation views in the thread show it with frames). Is that right? And to do 9016 replacement vents are needed - anyone know a source? Don't suppose anyone has a set of glazing for a blue/grey one that they've wrecked and want to sell/donate?

Is another factor blue versus black solebars? Or are they all blue but just mucky? The Landore thing has arrived and it's a shocker! While Hornby's artwork shows the BR blue as something like BR blue, the actual shade is a Toytown blue like nothing that ever ran on rails. I suspected this was going to happen, but had hoped they might at least pull their weight with the blue, and leave the grey to me. So the masking job will be the worst-case scenario - there are all the window bars/frames to mask, too, which I'd overlooked...

Very nice, and the right decision, in my opinion, not to attempt the lining, which will inevitably look overscale. But it looks like he's left the bodysides flat? You/we could get buffers and axleboxes 3D printed too. They'll be sharper than WM, and if you have bogie frames, you can just add the a/boxes, rather than adding a WM overlay, which will lead to overwide bogies - not quite sure what your plan was as so far I've only looked at the photos not read the text.

Hi Chas. Re the turnunder, I wouldn't want to anneal it - you'll get a lot of warping. My experience was that it was doable, but very hard - N/S might make the job easier. But I think you really need to follow the trick of supporting the centre part of the bodyside with a piece of thin card, to ensure that the curve rolls at the same rate all along (long pieces - roofs, bodysides - have a tendency to roll tighter at the ends than at the centre). Good news is it's a very slight curve. Yes, WW from only a couple of years ago, in brass. Not sure to what extent I'm "building" one - I suppose my subconscious had decided the difficulties were insurmountable... I don't have Isinglass but had come to the conclusion the cab formers were wrong on the kit too. You probably could - or will have to - anneal the cab fronts. Sounds like a good plan! But those latter are invisible, aren't they? It's very smooth with Justin. He'll even do the design work for those (like me) who are CAD-challenged. He charges a drawing/development fee and then the price of the product. I haven't had etches done, which might take longer due to the dearth of etchers, but I had some 3D prints done for Bamburgh and it was a very painless process, with superb results.

More attention to the noses: I initially tried the PH Designs lamp brackets, but one out of two looked ugly once soldered (doubtless my fault - haven't touched the iron for months), and were extremely fragile (not my fault). This is No.2 end: Then I remembered that my go-to 37 lamp irons in the past were always the Vitrains ones (the firm had to get something right), but I forgot they needed some sanding to get rid of the mould line. Below you see the nose in Humbrol matt white undercoat (to allow colour density when the yellow is applied over bare blue plastic) - and the lamp iron mould lines showing up rather badly. This is No.1 end so has some points of interest for the 37022 aficionados: this is the end with the bent plough, and I didn't manage to talk myself out of turning the nearside horn grille round 90 degrees. I took one off an old-model 37/5 end and it looked like it matched, but the photo suggests it is perhaps larger, so I may need to replace the other one too from the same source. Neither of these features (bent plough, horn grille) is coming up too well in the photos, however. Also for 37022 aficionados: don't worry, the duct-tape patch over the nose door piercing will come after the yellow is on. 37022 had a black headlight bracket, so I'm leaving that off until the yellow is done. I'll need to have a think about the yellow too - I'll probably avoid the other lot's Lemony Sick It. So here we are - as said, please excuse the mould lines on the lamp irons, and the work still needed on the lip to the nose lower edge. Also been working on this Kettle Kart - ex-NER D.5 toilet-y composite-y thingy for the LNER period. It's now in LNER brown in the airing cupboard, and I think I've plugged most of the incorrect holes that some twit (OK, me) had drilled in the (brass) roof, and now have them all drilled in the right place...

Ah, yes, I see that you mentioned it on Wright Writes, which I've had on "ignore" for 4 happy years!

Apologies!

Too early for this, surely? Can't remember when push-pull ended on the Arrochar job, but the last C15s weren't withdrawn until 1960. I don't recall seeing any trailers with Fox bogies while in Scotland, though one certainly got them when transferred to departmental use. There was a long piece on the Arrochar trains in Backtrack (?) a couple of years ago. Are you aware of this thread? Photos long gone, of course:

Thinking further ahead, Chas, have you thought about how to curve the bodyside? I haven't read everything on your thread, but have I picked up that your kit is nickel silver? Mine is very thick unbendable brass. It's bad enough trying to impart the curve in the lower bodyside, but then there's the sharper curved in the fronts to do too. Also, the front windows look wrong (too small? too far apart?). Also, it calls itself a kit for the D.96, but I'd concluded it was closer to a D.97 as the etch has no hinged toplights (there was only 4" from memory difference in the passenger compartment length; D96s are supposed to have a plain driver's door and D.97s a panelled one, but I don't see evidence of that in photos). Still, the D.96 names are better - Tweedside! - so perhaps you/we could commission some toplight etches from Rumney? Sorry if all this has been covered.

Google Sheets would allow collaboration, and then once done it can be screenshotted and posted on here. That way, one person wouldn't have to do everything. It would just take someone to start the Sheet, and then those that wanted to contribute to share their email addresses. It has a "wiki" function where if someone gets something wrong, more knowledgeable people can correct it.

Given such updates, and the necessarily scattered nature of the information on this thread, I wonder if a table would help? - coach numbers down the left hand side, with various features across the top: window rims or not, buffet lettering style (window and bodyside), treatment of windows (paint, etc), bogies, end details, roof vents, ScotR/rail lettering, coach lettering brackets, length of red stripe, anything else. I'd offer to do it myself but the corrections at later points in the thread would make it a little difficult.

Her logic cannot be faulted. We obviously neither of us have a good face for memories...

I think it is better than Bachmann's 2MT, which never looked right to me (wheels too small?), and that's why I was tempted by this. I think fundamentally it looks right and the two problem areas - boiler gash and wheels - would be "solved" (with some swearing in the case of the boiler) by putting a new chassis under it. But like you, I think I'll wait, even thouh it's the loco I've wanted modelled for 45+ years. The annoying thing is, if you do pay £200 for one and then want to get rid of the chassis, they don't fetch much on ebay because the chassis has a bit of boiler tagging along for the ride, so is little use to buyer; and the buyer also needs the tender chassis (or needs to know how to rewire the loco chassis) in order to run it. Maybe I'll get back to the Mike Edge/Bachmann conversion.

No, there were a couple of instances when bogie coaches were used, when the line's stock was unavailable. There's a photo of one in Alan Wright's book.

Wrong NSR, though... (Still Flickr, still unusual and interesting carriages.)

Good advice. I think I just got away with it without the wood because my work piece was so narrow, so proportionally stiffer than you'd expect from 10 thou. But I wouldn't like to do it without wood for a larger piece.

So it was you standing next to me at the Branchlines stand! Sorry, just didn't recognise you soon enough!

Interesting... And silly, as they've done bevelled wheels before, haven't they? - on the 4MT 4-6-0, for example? On the plus side, it looks from photos that Hornby have not gone in for their usual mania for mould lines at 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock on the boiler? Or are they just not showing up in phone-camera shots? Seem to remember they were pretty prominent on the pre-production version. I still don't like the line where the boiler top meets the boiler bottom, and what that will mean for trying to convert it to P4. I cancelled my pre-order a few years ago for that reason. But then tempted again just to have one to run on my dad's 00 layout. But now these bevel-less wheels...

You could so I suppose, but I wanted to get away from that, which is why I bought the vice to go on top of the coordinate table. With the b.beam I think I just held it in the vice jaws, not wood. It has to be tight enough not to move, but not so tight that it's distorting the workpiece (the b.beam was 10 thou). You've always got the option of using an oversize piece of metal, and then trimming down to your component afterwards.

Very well done. Encouraging results. What gloss will you use? This thread is certainly inspiring me to get one of these carriages going. EDIT: just picked up the Landore version from Kernow for £29.99 with postage included - cheaper than the secondhand one currently on Rails. Will need a full repaint, but I'm hoping to mask either side of the white line to avoid having to do it in transfers. We'll see. Will need a solution for the blanked off window too. But I'm joining the party - and will be very grateful for the information in this thread.

I found the product number for the 0.4mm centre drill - it came from Associated Production Tools. The photo also shows the bufferbeam I drilled out with it, with the workpiece clamped in the machine vice, clamped in turn to the coordinate table. (Once drilled, all the holes were plugged with 0.4 wire and filed to length.)

Yes, they don't make sense. I contacted RT and he sent me a diagram. I decided that the inside valve gear wasn't much use for the loco I was building (I was essentially using the rods from the RT chassis kit for a scratchbuilt "L-class altered") so didn't try to get my head round the diagram - but it may help you...