Daddyman

I'd go along with that. I've always argued that the bodies were new, and I think you're right on the width. Yeadon says the rebodies were 3900, though, so some capacity is clearly lost somewhere. Possibly necessitated by spring strength? That bodge at the front is weird, though, especially when they had an elegant design for the D49 rebodies, with the tender sides curving in at the front to match the cab width. I briefly wondered if they'd kept everything from the front bulkhead forwards, including a section of the old tender sides supporting the handrail. However, your 8'6" width argues for a new front bulkhead, so those handrail plates are unlikely to be part of the old tender sides. That then raises the question of what pattern bulkhead - NER or GS? I'd go for GS given that the tender rear followed GS pattern.

The drawing shows the "outer" tender side (for want of a better term) extending to the front edge of the footplate, and the handrail attached to it, whereas in reality I think the side stops short of the front footplate edge to reveal an "inner" section of side on which the handrail is mounted. The drawing also shows a straight diagonal leading edge to the front cut-out, when in reality it has an S-shaped double curve. Clicking on the photo below allows it to be blown up.

In that view the tank wrapper looks like it's been very evenly rolled, with a good straight line along the sharp lower corners - something few modellers get right. Have you tried the Sharpie test? - cover the whole wrapper and see if the light reflection is even. You can always rub a spot with sandpaper if there's the odd problem, especially where wrappers tend to ramp up where they are soldered at the front and rear.

Do you need to cut a new side? Remember the rebuilt one has that weird bit of what you might call "double bodyside" at the front end - a sheet of metal set inboard of the new bodyside and protruding forward of it, on which the handrail is mounted - could that account for the extra foot? It almost looks like a section of the old tender side has been retained, though this surely cannot be the case.

The railway never operated as the North Sunderland Light Railway. Alan Wright in his book on the line complains about those who "never knew the North Sunderland Railway, or who have not researched its past" and refer to it as the North Sunderland "Light" Railway. The Y7 (as it was by then) 68089 was fitted with a vacuum brake, not Westinghouse, as depicted correctly on the Rapido model.

North Sunderland Light Railway.

I see what you mean about the doors: Looks like you'll need a white filter coat over the whole thing too, masking this near cab side and the IS stag.

But as @Porcy Mane has pointed out on the S4 forum recently, they've kept the clips too, which are useless once you have the screws - all they do is increase the risk of breaking the plastic bogie-frame unit; Porcy's suggestion was to file the clips off the metal inner bogie, and I think it's a good idea.

Good point! (Whitby pronunciation?) Ah! Of course, yes! But no extra on the other side according to Sadler - just the usual vent over the right-hand window of each compartment, as per standard NER practice.

Yes, that's what decided me on putting it at the end nearest the toilet; Ives has it at this end, Sadler at the other. Not a D.74 as the panelling between the two compartments furthest from the camera on the Brampton coach is single; on a D.74 it's double (see Transport Library image LSDC1150). 39 x D.74s built, incidentally.

Avoid the staples - too thick. I'd have thought crushing will make the wire slightly wider than the looked-for 0.3mm. I always go with filing as per @t-b-g and @Citadel. Citadel has even shown how good it can look. A refinement on t-b-g's sheet of brass, though, is to tack solder to a slab of PCB (less flex).

I've never done one of these "full" plated headcode boxes as I've only ever done 37/4s, but the Shawplan headcode marker light etches are from the old range (the previous owner) so are not up to Brian's usual standard - they're a bit too 2D. On the old model I used to use plastic tube, fixed in place then reamed out to take the Bachmann lenses:

I mean... he was probably still shellshocked at the many, many ways the Midland did things wrong. One battle at a time.

I suppose this is allowed - a detail crop for research purposes; should count as fair use: Do you mean the second vent from the LH end? Yes - there seem to be two in that compartment for some reason. Note that one of the hoods (the one over the toilet) is in the open position - that confused me for a while: wondered why the NER had ray guns on their carriage roofs! In your period, yes. The last 1st before the solitary 3rd at the end was downgraded in LNER days to 3rd according to Williamson in an early NERA article; I've done the transfers on mine following Williamson.

There you go! https://www.flickr.com/photos/irishswissernie/albums/72157687890893261/with/26333242139/ Seems to be a D.5:

Precisely! That's the reason why the hoods had to remain over the toilets once the other hoods on the vehicles disappeared and the NER switched to incandescent gas lighting - the centrally mounted incandescent light would not have reached into the toilets. Took me a few months to work that one out too! LNER arrangement (can't remember if this was before or after I removed the feeds to the hoods, plugged all the holes and moved them a smidgen inboard! EDIT: it's certainly before I realised the clerestory vents had flush rather than louvred faces in late NER and LNER days, and flipped them over):

You've done extremely well without a drawing - hood on centre line of clerestory vents/door vents except over toilet where hood shares centre line with a vent (unless you model after 1908 when hoods start to disappear - except over toilets). Sadler drawing (usual source of D&S box art) is I think NERA Supplement 84. But there was a drawing by one G.R, Ives in a very North Eastern issue of (?) Model Railway News in the 1970s - albeit without roof arrangement but with interior view to answer Stephen's next question: corridor on the other side, yes, but going the other way (i.e. away from the gas-tap end, towards the step end). So two "part" corridors - one on this side to give access to two compartments to the right of the toilet; one on the other side to give access to two compartments to the "other" right. Interestingly (well, not really), Ives and Sadler each show the alarm at a different end! A photo of what I think is a D.5 on Ernie's Brampton thread, and one at York in the BRJ special NER issue, seems to show it at the one you (and I) have modelled. That took me a few months of agony to work out! Are you in the NERA? Image KT02270 in the Ken Taylor collection has a superb broadside view of the other side of a D.5 in NER condition, still with hoods; the arrangement is quite complex. I can't publish it here unfortunately.

Second roof vent from the far end shouldn't be there (it's over a corridor to the toilet, so no need for a vent), and there should be a bodyside vent above the toilet window.

Stored at Toton. Recent workings for class 60s according to wnxx.com going back to November were from Wolverhampton Steel Terminal, Lostock Works- Warrington Arpley, 6V05 from Round Oak to Margam, 6H02 from Warrington to Tunstead, 6B13 Robeston to Westerleigh (gone over to pairs of 66s), and 6E54 Kingsbury-Humber. There used to be a class 60 working with TEAs (?) to Jarrow (?) as I saw it once or twice when diving into the south end of the Tyne Tunnel. But I don't know when it last worked.

That's possibly the stock from the most recent owner of the Grosmont shop; George, the original owner, is still in business but not in Grosmont, as the link upthread shows.

Was that the same for D6700, then? - it was used for the G-E tests.

Brilliant! Thank you! Thought l knew how to google...

Requesting a photo rather than posting one: does anyone know of photos of Mk1 34500 in the days when it was being used on the ECML as a test for Glasgow-Edinburgh push-pull workings? According to an article in Rail Express, the carriage was given a driving cab and kept its standard maroon albeit with small yellow warning panels. I know the carriage survives today and had a long life with the RTC, but wondered if there were any pictures of it in maroon during the ECML test period. Flickriver search on "Mk1 34500" only produces photos of the carriage in preservation.

Exciting stuff, Rich. Glad you found a use - sorry if there was a mix-up on the body. I hope the work will be up to scratch!

I think I win! Are these right? The unpainted pair has one balance weight (insulated, if I understand these things) and one not (uninsulated), but the green one would act as an insulated (?) matching pair?