Peterborough North

[coachmann]

I have no knowledge of what happened to the experimental liveries. That they were experimental and in some cases an embarrassment probably led the BR board to have them repainted once the standard liveries had been finalised. But this is only a guess. Mickler makes the point that paint didn't adhere to well to the old teak finish. Maybe this is why large numbers of teak coaches were still around even in 1954. I well recall seeing peeling blood & custard but for some reason the post 1956 maroon seemed to suffer less. Paint is paint and so maybe the preparation had improved by 1956.

[Oldddudders]

Happy Birthday, Gilbert! And thanks once again for continuing to share your lovely model.

 

[Also hope you've dried out from yesterday's golf!]

[gr.king]

Hi Gilbert,

 

Can I just check whether you saw my PM five days ago please?

[great northern]

Hi Gilbert,

 

Can I just check whether you saw my PM five days ago please?

Hi Graeme,

 

Yes - I replied to your personal e-mail address on 7th. If it didn't get through let me know and I will resend.

[great northern]

This week's visit to TW was spent working on his layout, but we did also spend some time discussing just how acceptable these conversions are. They do take quite a time to do, but still well short of the time needed to build a complete kit, so Tony lent me one that he has completed and painted so that I can compare it with my "Rolls Royce" models from the Willets/Studley team.

So here we go. I don't have any suitable maroon Willets coaches, so this will have to do.  A thorn between two roses? What do you think? One thing that surprised me was the difference in ride height.

That shows up even more in this view, but it also demonstrates that the lining is now in the correct place, and that does help a lot.

A similar but sharper view.

Next comparison is with a standard Hornby in maroon, and a kit built brake, I assume originating from Comet. Three different interpretations of maroon here, but still useful I think, and somewhat thought provoking.

And still so in close up.

And this shows how great an improvement the conversion is over standard Hornby.

As does this, but the difference between the conversion and the kit build - is that so obvious?

Different roof profile, but which one is wrong?

Closer still.

And one final close up, again showing how far off the Hornby "waistline" is.

 

My view is that the conversion is a very noticeable improvement on the out of the box Hornby coach. But, how much of an improvement is the full kit build? It's a bit harsh to compare our effort with those of a professional builder and painter, and of course those are better, but how much better?  Etched sides cost £10-13 for a pair, and donor coaches can be picked up quite cheaply on E- Bay. I've just ordered all that is needed to build a complete coach from Dart Castings, one of the MJT range, and the parts alone cost getting on for £70. I'm not complaining at that, it is perfectly reasonable, but it does get me thinking as to whether the extra cost and time involved in building it will result in something very significantly better than the conversion route. I want to have a go at a couple of full kit builds anyway, but I admit to being very unsure about the rest. As always, your views and opinions will be much appreciated.

[jwealleans]

Try factoring your time into the equation, Gilbert.  I freely admit that I enjoy building kits.  So for whatever an MJT coach costs (I'll take your getting on for £70 as a ballpark) I get upwards of 20 hours of building time, if you do a proper interior and weather it, without adding in the time spent researching and at the end of that I have an asset, the satisfaction of creating it and all the pleasure of running it on a layout to come.   How much does 20 hours of golf cost?

 

If I pay £48 or whatever the going rate is for a Hornby RTR, all I need to do is take it out of the box, maybe weather and add passengers (a couple of hours?).  Then I'm at the running it on a layout stage.  There's far less creative process involved and (personally) I get far less satisfaction from it.  And at the end of the day it's highly unlikely your formation is accurate unless you go down the kit build/buying route.

 

'Better' is subjective.  I'd love a Larry Goddard or Dave Studley paint job on the coaches I'm building at the moment, but I'll do it myself because I can achieve a standard which satisfies me and at the end of the day it's mine. 

 

I never thought I'd see the day when a Hornby coach cost more than a D & S kit, but now it's here I know which I think reflects better value.  I appreciate that if you're not so confident soldering or painting and if you have the highest standards to match in what's already on the layout, it can be a bit daunting.  This goes for anyone who's hesitant about building kits.  Pretty much everything, they say, is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration.  If you're prepared to perspire, most people can get close to 99% of the best.  It's that 1% which keeps Larry (and Ian, and Dave) at the top of their profession.

[Guest 2750]

Hi Gilbert

I've been following closely what Mr Wright and yourself have been working on. I personally think the results from the conversions you have a achieved look excellent. I'm very much aware of the fact I'm going to need a large proportion of Gresley 61 footers for my layout, and the method I have decided on is a mix of Kirks (with upgrading of parts as Jonathan Wealleans has shown) and Hornby Gresleys with replaced sides. I've already around 20 Kirks plus 25-30 Hornby Gresley donors with a further 18 being acquired through horse trading with a friend.... obviously I realise with my plans I'm going to need many more. A further factor I'm taking into account, is the haulage ability of my Hornby A1/A3s and A4s. I doubt they could haul a rake of kit built coaches.

 

Would I be right that yourself and Tony have been using a mix of Comet and MJT sides? Bill Bedford seems to do most diagrams, so I presume those sides could be used as well?

 

Best

Edited June 13, 2014 by 2750

[Tony Wright]

This week's visit to TW was spent working on his layout, but we did also spend some time discussing just how acceptable these conversions are. They do take quite a time to do, but still well short of the time needed to build a complete kit, so Tony lent me one that he has completed and painted so that I can compare it with my "Rolls Royce" models from the Willets/Studley team.

thorn 1.jpg

So here we go. I don't have any suitable maroon Willets coaches, so this will have to do.  A thorn between two roses? What do you think? One thing that surprised me was the difference in ride height.

thorn 2.jpg

That shows up even more in this view, but it also demonstrates that the lining is now in the correct place, and that does help a lot.

thorn 3.jpg

A similar but sharper view.

thorn 4.jpg

Next comparison is with a standard Hornby in maroon, and a kit built brake, I assume originating from Comet. Three different interpretations of maroon here, but still useful I think, and somewhat thought provoking.

thorn 5.jpg

And still so in close up.

thorn 6.jpg

And this shows how great an improvement the conversion is over standard Hornby.

thorn 7.jpg

As does this, but the difference between the conversion and the kit build - is that so obvious?

thorn 8.jpg

Different roof profile, but which one is wrong?

thorn 9.jpg

Closer still.

thorn 10.jpg

And one final close up, again showing how far off the Hornby "waistline" is.

 

My view is that the conversion is a very noticeable improvement on the out of the box Hornby coach. But, how much of an improvement is the full kit build? It's a bit harsh to compare our effort with those of a professional builder and painter, and of course those are better, but how much better?  Etched sides cost £10-13 for a pair, and donor coaches can be picked up quite cheaply on E- Bay. I've just ordered all that is needed to build a complete coach from Dart Castings, one of the MJT range, and the parts alone cost getting on for £70. I'm not complaining at that, it is perfectly reasonable, but it does get me thinking as to whether the extra cost and time involved in building it will result in something very significantly better than the conversion route. I want to have a go at a couple of full kit builds anyway, but I admit to being very unsure about the rest. As always, your views and opinions will be much appreciated.

Thanks for posting the pictures, Gilbert.

 

One thing they do highlight is the slightly 'wobbly' and slightly 'whiskery' nature of my numeral applications - they're PC 'Pressfix transfers and I thought I'd got them straight and true and removed any gum 'halo'. Not quite so. I also should have extended the transfer lining beyond the doors in one case, but indolence rules. You'll note how I apply the lining just below the central beading, because I find transfers of whatever kind lift when applied to such relief. In this respect, even though it's 'wrong', it looks better than Hornby's.

 

All the above said, mine (and the ones we're doing for you) are 'layout' carriages and should be judged as that. I only built locos professionally, and where I wanted a top-drawer paint finish (say, on my Pullman cars) I passed them to Ian Rathbone. My coach-painting is car acrylic, brush for the roof and ends and transfer lining/lettering. In this respect, the carriage you've just photographed is not in the same class with regard to the finish. But how else does this 'layout' carriage (and yours will be just the same) compare with the high-spec' pro-job?

 

I cannot comment on the ride-height because that's dictated by the Hornby donor, and has not been altered. At least it rides on the correct 'general purpose' 8' 6" Gresley bogies. The ones underneath the professionally-built carriage look to be BSL/Phoenix ones, which more nearly represent the heavy-duty Gresley bogie - look at the difference between the relative central frame depths. These were only fitted to catering cars, sleeping cars, the pressure-ventilated stock and the streamlined artics, not ordinary all-door or end-door stock. Mine has hinges as well, and footboards on the bogie (though the ones on the solebars under the doors might be a bit long). I think my over-door ventilators are on straighter as well, at least in one case. 

 

To me then, and this includes the work you're doing, the principal difference is in the paint finish. I think it's very important that you (and I) paint the finished conversions ourselves (because that's what real railway modelling is all about as far as I'm concerned), and, on a layout I feel any subtle differences of finish will be difficult to detect. David Studley's painting work is exceptional (as has been highlighted by your pictures), but for your general needs I think these conversions fit the bill. And, you'll have done a lot of it yourself, which will, I know, give you the greatest pleasure.  

Edited June 13, 2014 by Tony Wright

[davidw]

To me they are very passable - I suppose try the ride height against a mk1 or Thompson, mixed rakes I find are the biggest issue...

[bigwordsmith]

I think the easiest answer for most modellers is often to be found in weathering. Very, very few people would know there is anything wrong with Hornby vs,. Kirk oar indeed any of he brass sides, so will happily focus on the kettle at the front. The coaches are often and afterthought.

 

And if I tell myself that often enough, I may even start to believe it!

[coachmann]

The lining on the Hornby maroon Gresley is in fact nearest the mark. On BR maroon the yellow lining was astride the top waist beading with the black on the actual beading. Because raised etching is slightly overscale in 4mm on most kits, a compromise is necessary. Putting the whole lining under the beading is perhaps the only way with transfers. With a bow-pen one can be half-accurate! By this I put the black on the beading then the top yellow above the beading and the bottom yellow on the raised beading. The effect even close up looks correct and i suppose it would be if the etched beading was to absolute scale.

 

I only found this coach yesterday, as I thought I had repainted all mine in blood & custard. Magnification is cruel and the previous blood & custard waist lining shows as a 'moulding' just below the waist (as does all the fluff and crap through not being dusted down)....Tony W. doesn't have a monopoly on higley pigley numerals....!

 

Edited June 13, 2014 by coachmann

[micklner]

Nice coaches

 

Surprised Larry never mentioned his conversions here including lifting the bodies higher

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/5649-blog-coachmanns-blog-lner-gresleythompson-coach-remedies/

 

I have done some Teak ones using MJT sides without any real problems on my thread . The hardest (ish) bits were narrowing the underframe and lining them.

[great northern]

Thanks for all the contributions folks. I reckon the answer, as so often is the case, lies somewhere in between. I totally agree with Tony's concept of layout locos and coaches when dealing with projects as large as the two of us have taken on, and my own conclusion is that the conversions will look acceptable at normal viewing distance.

 

I am deriving a lot of satisfaction from doing some things myself, but harsh reality has to be factored in. I would not be able to do a complete coach myself, as I don't have the ability, not for that matter the necessary tools/jigs, to undertake some key tasks. I'm reliant on, and very grateful to, Tony for guiding me through a very considerable learning process, but I'm not going to try to take advantage of his kindness by proposing long lists of coaches I would like to have. For that reason I think conversions will form the major part of the project, with a couple of complete kit builds just to see how it is done, and to what degree I can cope with it. I don't want to turn this into a chore for either Tony or myself, so restraint must be exercised, though hopefully we might be able to contemplate the occasional further effort as time goes by.

[great northern]

Nice coaches

 

Surprised Larry never mentioned his conversions here including lifting the bodies higher

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/5649-blog-coachmanns-blog-lner-gresleythompson-coach-remedies/

 

I have done some Teak ones using MJT sides without any real problems on my thread . The hardest (ish) bits were narrowing the underframe and lining them.

Thanks Mick, I'd lost the link to that.  TW and I decided not to go to the extent of narrowing the underframe, but raising the ride height seems to be a relatively simple task, so that at least may be tackled.

[micklner]

They are not that hard to do. If you have a cheap coach have a go , you learn from experience. Much easier to finish than my Teak ones as it can all be done with Halfords aerosols.

[Mallard60022]

If I may offer an opinion Gilbert. I know you need Gresley coaches, however you may find that full kit building (say) a lovely, Comet Thompson  just that bit easier for starters. Of course, if you don't need more Thompson's then ignore this or give your newly finished one to me   .

Tony may disagree, however the Thompsons do not involve the overlapping of the 'half sides' (as you know) and they are easy to line (according to my friend Geoff).

I'm now offering a view on the 'conversions'; "......like, the way to go, like.....whatever........" as a young person would say. Altering ride height in fixed rakes is so simple even I can  could do it.

Phil

[Tony Wright]

If I may offer an opinion Gilbert. I know you need Gresley coaches, however you may find that full kit building (say) a lovely, Comet Thompson  just that bit easier for starters. Of course, if you don't need more Thompson's then ignore this or give your newly finished one to me   .

Tony may disagree, however the Thompsons do not involve the overlapping of the 'half sides' (as you know) and they are easy to line (according to my friend Geoff).

I'm now offering a view on the 'conversions'; "......like, the way to go, like.....whatever........" as a young person would say. Altering ride height in fixed rakes is so simple even I can  could do it.

Phil

Phil,

       You're quite right - Thompson stock is easier to 'make' than the equivalent Gresleys and it's certainly easier to line. I did all the 'Elizabethan' conversions using Southern pride sides on Bachmann donors, altering the roof to suit. And, I think it's the roof profile which is the 'potential' problem with the Comet kits, because I believe the profile was/is generic - a Mk.1 type. When Tony Geary and I were building Thompson stock for Stoke we used many Comet kits but substituted a Mike Trice roof. This is much more accurate, much more bulbous. Look at any Thompson car in a rake containing Mk.1s and it is much more bulbous above the cantrail (not the apex height). Bachmann has several of these cars right now, assisting the firm (I hope) in a little way with the production of its RTR equivalents. If what I was shown is true (and I see no reason to doubt it), these will be outstanding models, rendering, at a stroke, the need for kit-builds - unless it's for open stock or catering cars. 

 

If Comet now supplies the correct roof, then please advise everyone. 

 

It might be an idea for Gilbert and me to investigate some Bachmann conversions using Comet's sides. The donor coaches are pretty cheap and the sides excellent value. 

Edited June 14, 2014 by Tony Wright

[tetleys]

Gilbert,

 

I cannot speak for other regular spectators to your post but you and I are of an age where we need spectacles to locate your railway room and the only time any of your coaches are scrutinised is under the lens of a camera, my personal beef with professional kit built coaches (and my own attempts) is the usual lack of hinges which is far more noticeable than some of the nuances being mentioned.  I agree the basic Hornby coaches are poor but Tony's conversions are certainly more than good enough to pass muster and at a reasonable price but of course I accept that there are those amongst us who enjoy building kits so it seems there is something on the menu to suit all tastes, providing of course the butchery of the Hornby sides was not El Hal ! (However it's spelt)

 

Stumbling in Dark of Ancaster

[Mallard60022]

Some people that have too much time on their hands do fit hinges most of the time and even more sad, door 'bumpers'.

 

If one is a pro though I fully accept that time is critical and very often only the lower hinges are really needed.

P

Edited June 17, 2014 by Mallard60022

[coachmann]

 Roofs with rebates (like Comet's) are great for most coaches but not coaches with toplights or high windows as on Thompson stock..........The MJT roof is the one to use. I built some Thompson corridor's using Comet sides, but seeing as the MJT roof sits on top of the sides (instead of having rebates that slip inside the sides), it is best to solder a strip of brass at right-angles along the inside top of the sides to prevent them bowing in. Go for it Bro......

The maroon coach above has Bachmann bogies.

 

The Blood & custard has Hornby bogies....A much better prospect - if you can get hold of 'em! (This model is still unfinished).

Edited June 17, 2014 by coachmann

[Mallard60022]

Thank for that Coach. Very , very nice. I remember you posting those but had forgotten the solder strip ruse. I was going to use plasticard but of course the solder strip will also add some 'rigidity'.

 

What I hadn't shown with that Thompson Lav Comp was the use of an MJT roof that I had left over from a set of Fozzard builds (dear, departed John......).

A bit of filler will be required but the roof profile is a bit more prototypical. 

 

Hornby bogies - Peter's Spares maybe? Probably easier and saves time.

I need to put bogie foot boards on and the plastic units would be simpler to fit out I think?

 

Phil

Edited June 17, 2014 by Mallard60022

[tetleys]

Mallard and Coachman plus a few more of their ilk make it look so easy, I didn't even know the Comet Thompsons used generic BR Standard roof profiles until I'd made a couple so my third coach so as not to look out of place was built with the Comet roof but even then I couldn't find time to add the hinges I so miss.

 

When images like the above are posted it does sow a seed of doubt in the minds of us mere mortals and yes, like Gilbert I would always prefer to have accurate consists but then I'd also like track to a scale 4' 81/2" but am I prepared to build to exact standards (even if I could?). It's frustrating but we have to make so many compromises and I try not to think about them too much, I do like images of well made coaching stock so keep the faith chaps.

 

Godless of Ancaster

[coachmann]

Fear not Tetleys, we are all mere mortals! I may build my own coaches but I am perfectly at ease with 00 gauge track and with flicking Peco points over with my finger. Bachmann couplings too are my standard even though they spoil the appearance of locos and prohibit the fitting of those lovely dangling vac and steam pipes.

 

Speaking for myself, if I make coach building it look easy, I could say you make the making and finishing of lanky buildings look so easy, but no doubt you take it in your stride. I had to learn how to achieve yours and Peter Leylands finish simply because I could settle for nothing less once I had seen it. In fact most everything I do outside of painting & lining and coach building is new to me and it was all picked up from what I saw on RMweb over the past 6½ years. Perseverance & practice Mr.T.....  

[Mallard60022]

Ah Tetleys. That is praise indeed and I thank you.

However, what you don't know is that I have yet to fully finish any coach I've ever built (other than some Kitmaster MK1s about 50 years ago and a couple of Graham Farish lumps from about 1976 and even they have not got decals).

I am having therapy to overcome this unforgivable behaviour and I'm also sourcing skills sessions from professionals relating to prototype research (other than SR Bulleids as I actually know about them), detailing, glazing, painting, weathering and finally, the trains in which the coach would have been used.

Hinges and door bumpers are a right faff but I like doing them. Painting the damn things is another ball game entirely.....

P 

[great northern]

Ah Tetleys. That is praise indeed and I thank you.

However, what you don't know is that I have yet to fully finish any coach I've ever built (other than some Kitmaster MK1s about 50 years ago and a couple of Graham Farish lumps from about 1976 and even they have not got decals).

I am having therapy to overcome this unforgivable behaviour and I'm also sourcing skills sessions from professionals relating to prototype research (other than SR Bulleids as I actually know about them), detailing, glazing, painting, weathering and finally, the trains in which the coach would have been used.

Hinges and door bumpers are a right faff but I like doing them. Painting the damn things is another ball game entirely.....

P 

Ah, but you left before TW demonstrated how easy the painting side can be. I'm sure it isn't as simple as it looked, but even I may be able to point a can of car aerosol in the right direction I reckon.