Wright writes.....

[john new]

45 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

You have a full house there Robert!

 

They are the two.

 

From memory, the last one went in either 1956 or 1957 so it is not too far out.

 

Those photos illustrate the simpler handrail arrangement very well.

 

Are they the one’s that have (did) end up for restoration at Goathland. For a long time they were behind the sleeping coaches with the Hull & Barnsley coach.

[Bernard Lamb]

Seeing that there is a wide range of interests on here I will post this on WW rather than under the real railways section. Many of you will have heard of North Woolwich station which was at one time a railway museum. When this closed the building was abandoned and vandalized. It is now owned by The New Covenant Church, an organization that from what I have been told originated in Nigeria in the 1980s and is now being externally restored and having the interior converted . Nice to see that this historic listed building has a new lease of life.

Bernard

 

[t-b-g]

28 minutes ago, john new said:

Are they the one’s that have (did) end up for restoration at Goathland. For a long time they were behind the sleeping coaches with the Hull & Barnsley coach.

 

The Brake 3rd was at the NYMR for a long time (28 years from 1970 to 1998) but the two Open 3rds came from the Severn Valley Railway and from being used as a tomato growing heated shed in Hull.

 

That is not me showing off my knowledge but was a straight lift from the website of the organisation restoring them at Ruddington, which has loads of photos and information on these and the other GCR carriages that they have. It is worth a look for anybody interested in the GCR and its carriages.

 

https://gcr-rollingstocktrust.co.uk/

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Clearwater said:

Apologies if I've missed it, but who's making those Barnum resin kits?  Appreciate Tony's comments about the preference for metal but I don't think a metal kit is currently commercially available?

 

David

Good afternoon David,

 

They're made by Alan Rose and his son-in-law, Martin Kirkby. 

 

I think, at the moment, they're a 'speculative' venture, but are available for sale (at around £70.00 each, I believe). I did point out that that's probably more than a complete etched kit, though (currently) there is no such product for a Barnum.

 

If Martin reads this, he might PM you with full details. 

 

They'll be published in due course, anyway. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, 65179 said:

 

Your Barnum is coming on well Tony. There are 3 Barnums on the Nottingham Heritage Railway (formerly called the GCR(N)): Two thirds and a brake third. Hopefully they will all be fully restored in time.

 

The irony in the N5 brake comment is that they and the equivalent J10s are two of the few loco classes where I'd want the brakes to be right. Of the two types fitted,  the earlier massive brake hangers are so distinctive (although typically I can't lay my hands on a photo where they jump out at you) and more prominent than those fitted to later examples:

 

 

Regards,

Simon

Thanks Simon,

 

I agree with your comment on N5 brakes.

 

The story involving Roy Jackson (and the N5 he'd built) concerns a comment by a guest at one of the Retford open days, where he asked the great man if the brakes were correct on the loco. Now, Roy and I were standing by the station, and the N5 was shunting at Babworth (a scale half a mile away?). The core of Roy's response was along the lines of, at that distance, he couldn't tell what class it was, let alone if it had the right brakes, or even any brakes at all! You may put any expletive adjectives into the response wherever you wish. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

43 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

The Brake 3rd was at the NYMR for a long time (28 years from 1970 to 1998) but the two Open 3rds came from the Severn Valley Railway and from being used as a tomato growing heated shed in Hull.

 

That is not me showing off my knowledge but was a straight lift from the website of the organisation restoring them at Ruddington, which has loads of photos and information on these and the other GCR carriages that they have. It is worth a look for anybody interested in the GCR and its carriages.

 

https://gcr-rollingstocktrust.co.uk/

Thanks Tony,

 

The picture in the collection illustrating the Barnum brake seems to show the handrails the same as I've fitted. A much-later replacement, towards the end of the carriage's working life? 

 

I was at Ruddington all last weekend, at the model railway show there. I should have taken my camera with me and looked at the full-sized items.

 

Regards.

 

Tony. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[96701]

7 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Couldn't quite spot the Wagon Shop though Phil!

Jen was with me one Saturday night when the Donny breakdown crane assisted in the removal of the footbridge between the carriage and the wagon works. We were even treated to breakfast on the living van on Sunday morning.

[Barry Ten]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Simon,

 

I agree with your comment on N5 brakes.

 

The story involving Roy Jackson (and the N5 he'd built) concerns a comment by a guest at one of the Retford open days, where he asked the great man if the brakes were correct on the loco. Now, Roy and I were standing by the station, and the N5 was shunting at Babworth (a scale half a mile away?). The core of Roy's response was along the lines of, at that distance, he couldn't tell what class it was, let alone if it had the right brakes, or even any brakes at all! You may put any expletive adjectives into the response wherever you wish. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

With respect to Mr Jackson, It's a daft response. If we took the view that all models look indistinguishable at a scale half mile, we might as well just chuck lumps of wood onto wheels. The reason we put brakes onto them is that from time to time they end up being close enough that such details matter if they're left off.

[Barclay]

46 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

 

With respect to Mr Jackson, It's a daft response. If we took the view that all models look indistinguishable at a scale half mile, we might as well just chuck lumps of wood onto wheels. The reason we put brakes onto them is that from time to time they end up being close enough that such details matter if they're left off.

I suspect Roy's comment was intended to suggest that the guest had broken rule 1 of being a guest - 'if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything'. I have been fortunate to visit a number of model railways, including Retford a number of times, and LB, and wouldn't dream of making such a comment - after all, the host has invited you, a perfect stranger, into his/her home. Not that I generally have that kind of detailed knowledge anyway (Damn - something else to remember when I build my own N5...)

[Tony Wright]

I've now painted the Barnum.......

 

 

The brown is from Halfords acrylic rattle can range (Vauxhall, I think), though it's much too glossy. Weathering will tone this down. I've already weathered the bogies/underframe.

 

Just numbering and glazing needed now, then the final weathering.

 

Whatever one's opinion of 3D-printed carriages, it has to be said this is an extremely rapid method of building vehicles. In fact, precious little 'building' is required, so it'll suit the time-starved modeller perfectly. It'll also suit those who claim that they can't 'build' anything for themselves.

 

 

[gr.king]

8 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I would fancy my chances of making the simpler type from wire. They should be a round section anyway so wire is more accurate than a flat etch.

 

Well done if you made the fancy version from wire. I think I would have chickened out.

It didn't seem enormously difficult at the time, just a bit tedious making eight convincingly matching ones of the fancy type for just one carriage, hence the other carriage got the plainer type. They are, as you say, round, which etched ones are not. I'm sure this image has paraded on here previously, but here it is for convenient reference:

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, gr.king said:

It didn't seem enormously difficult at the time, just a bit tedious making eight convincingly matching ones of the fancy type for just one carriage, hence the other carriage got the plainer type. They are, as you say, round, which etched ones are not. I'm sure this image has paraded on here previously, but here it is for convenient reference:

Terrific modelling, Graeme.

 

I'm glad (through ignorance) the Barnum I've decided to model has the altered (and much simpler) handrails. 

 

What are your Barnums made from, please? D&S kits? You appear to have used the same buffers I have. Though the 3D-printed ones are very accurate, as mentioned they shattered as I tried to drill them out. 

 

Still, as a 'layout coach'?

 

 

Being thoroughly road-tested this afternoon. 

 

The light has caught some evidence of the 3D-printing process, but, once weathered-down.........

 

My model-making disregarded, these really are splendid vehicles; very distinctive and way ahead of their time with regard to the real things. I've decided to use Rule 1 with reference to this car. It'll run at the back of a 'Parly' on the main line, with a pair of Thompsons in carmine/cream. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 12, 2022 by Tony Wright
to add something

[t-b-g]

6 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

 

With respect to Mr Jackson, It's a daft response. If we took the view that all models look indistinguishable at a scale half mile, we might as well just chuck lumps of wood onto wheels. The reason we put brakes onto them is that from time to time they end up being close enough that such details matter if they're left off.

 

5 hours ago, Barclay said:

I suspect Roy's comment was intended to suggest that the guest had broken rule 1 of being a guest - 'if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything'. I have been fortunate to visit a number of model railways, including Retford a number of times, and LB, and wouldn't dream of making such a comment - after all, the host has invited you, a perfect stranger, into his/her home. Not that I generally have that kind of detailed knowledge anyway (Damn - something else to remember when I build my own N5...)

 

I think you are both missing the point. Roy was not saying that it didn't matter whether the N5 had any brakes or not. It was a loco that he had built many years previously for Gainsborough Central and it was stuck in a siding ghat wasn't ever used many feet away from easy viewing. So he was just saying that he couldn't remember whether it had brakes or not, as some of his early Gainsborough locos did not. All his later ones did have brakes and very neat and accurate they were.

[t-b-g]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Tony,

 

The picture in the collection illustrating the Barnum brake seems to show the handrails the same as I've fitted. A much-later replacement, towards the end of the carriage's working life? 

 

I was at Ruddington all last weekend, at the model railway show there. I should have taken my camera with me and looked at the full-sized items.

 

Regards.

 

Tony. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

It was used in Departmental service from 1956 to 1970, so the handrails could have been changed during that time. I certainly haven't seen any like that in passenger use.

[t-b-g]

4 hours ago, gr.king said:

It didn't seem enormously difficult at the time, just a bit tedious making eight convincingly matching ones of the fancy type for just one carriage, hence the other carriage got the plainer type. They are, as you say, round, which etched ones are not. I'm sure this image has paraded on here previously, but here it is for convenient reference:

 

Very nice indeed! I wish mine looked like that. I did build one way back when I was modelling the LNER 1930s period but I used the etched ones form the kit. Yours look about 10 times better.

[gr.king]

4 hours ago, gr.king said:

It didn't seem enormously difficult at the time, just a bit tedious making eight convincingly matching ones of the fancy type for just one carriage, hence the other carriage got the plainer type. They are, as you say, round, which etched ones are not. I'm sure this image has paraded on here previously, but here it is for convenient reference:

Those were built from Jidenco kits, which came to me half-built (badly) so I stripped them down and started again, without any "instructions" (where there ever any?) making alterations here and there as I went along, comparing with known dimensions, drawings  and photographs. The Jidenco bogie sides, even their "coil" springs, are dead-flat of course, and although I've thought of improving or swapping them over the years I never got around to improving them, and when I realised that neither the D&S cast versions, nor the 247 developments cast versions were totally right, I continued to dither. Alan/Martin's versions seem much more nearly right, so I now plan to substitute those, but owing to the flat faces of the Jidenco solebars, which should actually have a lower lip/flange (bulb iron profile?), I'll have to narrow down the substitute bogies a bit before I fit them, otherwise the bogies will appear wider than the solebars...

[Tony Wright]

For those who have scale-length layouts, but who want to run un-scale-length trains, how about this?

 

 

 

Howard Smith and I loaded Accurascale's Deltic up to 37 carriages (many, metal kit-builds) on LB, but the train became unstable and the loco's coupling broke. So, 34 vehicles proved to be a 'desirable' maximum, but many more could have been added. Just simple physics prevented us from finding out just what this incredible model would pull. 

[jrg1]

Steve Banks has an image of a Barnum at Hull Paragon in 1949 with the decorative handrails, plus there is an image of E5712 at Gorton in 1949 with the same.

Also, there are images of newly-built Barnums with simple handrail arrangements.

I also have a picture of a crimson and cream Barnum TO on the ECML c1956.

[stewartingram]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

For those who have scale-length layouts, but who want to run un-scale-length trains, how about this?

 

 

 

Howard Smith and I loaded Accurascale's Deltic up to 37 carriages (many, metal kit-builds) on LB, but the train became unstable and the loco's coupling broke. So, 34 vehicles proved to be a 'desirable' maximum, but many more could have been added. Just simple physics prevented us from finding out just what this incredible model would pull. 

But...that is a RTR model....on LB!

[gr.king]

17 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

 

Being thoroughly road-tested this afternoon. 

 

The light has caught some evidence of the 3D-printing process, but, once weathered-down.........

I meant to say that I'd noticed the stepping of the inward-sloping upper sides on my examples in the raw state. It's most apparent on the van portion of the brake vehicle of course, where there's more "plain" matchboarding on show above the waist. On the full saloon version it can almost be ignored. I suspect that my examples, which I believe were printed at a different orientation, also show subtle diagonal wave-form variation in the depth/definition of some of the matchboarding below the waist. As I want to finish mine in teak to match the Jidenco pair as closely as possible, I'm planning to deal with the upper sides by means of a gentle rub down before painting, and I may selectively and lightly re-scribe some of the board joints in the less well defined areas.

Another thing to mention here (in the hope that after twenty years of nobody being able to show evidence that somebody might finally find and reveal a truly conclusive photograph) is that whilst I know that officially the LNER pre-1940s teak livery required all passenger doors for third class to show a large '3', I have not seen a photograph of a Barnum that actually shows such a thing, hence my models don't have the '3' on any doors either. No matter how many people think that the '3' would have been present on each door I'm not applying any until I see proof, as they are easier to add later than to remove later. So does anybody have visible proof please?

Edited July 13, 2022 by gr.king

[Tony Wright]

5 hours ago, stewartingram said:

But...that is a RTR model....on LB!

It is Stewart,

 

And it exposes my being a hypocrite. 

 

You see, I was given the model. Now, that doesn't suggest bribery and corruption, but I was asked by Patrick and Fran at Accurascale to provide a personal recollection of this great class and provide prototype photos for the little pamphlet which is included in the model's packaging, the fee being a Deltic of my choice. Gosh, I'm in the same literary company as O. S. Nock! 

 

I'll (obviously) keep it, because I don't think I could build a Deltic to anything approaching that standard; the way, I hope, I can with steam-outline locos. 

 

Anyway, it's out of time (and, really, place) because LB station was razed to the ground just under two years before the production Deltics appeared. However, I'm not going to destroy my station, just to make a Deltic model (however good) accurate in time. Thus, it'll only run when visitors appear; if they wish to see it.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited July 13, 2022 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, gr.king said:

I meant to say that I'd noticed the stepping of the inward-sloping upper sides on my examples in the raw state. It's most apparent on the van portion of the brake vehicle of course, where there's more "plain" matchboarding on show above the waist. On the full saloon version it can almost be ignored. I suspect that my examples, which I believe were printed at a different orientation, also show subtle diagonal wave-form variation in the depth/definition of some of the matchboarding below the waist. As I want to finish mine in teak to match the Jidenco pair as closely as possible, I'm planning to deal with the upper sides by means of a gentle rub down before painting, and I may selectively and lightly re-scribe some of the board joints in the less well defined areas.

Another thing to mention here (in the hope that after twenty years of nobody being able to show evidence that somebody might finally find and reveal a truly conclusive photograph) is that whilst I know that officially the LNER pre-1940s teak livery required all passenger doors for third class to show a large '3', I have not seen a photograph of a Barnum that actually shows such a thing, hence my models don't have the '3' on any doors either. No matter how many people think that the '3' would have been present on each door I'm not applying any until I see proof, as they are easier to add later than to remove later. So does anybody have visible proof please?

Good evening Graeme,

 

At the moment, my model is with Geoff Haynes. He's applied 'Dull-Coat' to it to take down the car-spray gloss (which has succeeded) and then he'll dust over a coat of weathering which should lessen the 'layering' effect you describe. I don't have an airbrush, and my dry-brush weathering technique really only suits smaller items of rolling stock or locomotives (which have far smaller individual surface areas). 

 

Interestingly, I thought about applying BR-style '3's to the passenger doors, but decided not to. Am I right, or wrong? As you say, does anyone know? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[jwealleans]

None of the pictures I've just been looking through (all BR era, most in brown apart from the exceptions already mentioned) have any class indications on the doors.

 

Surely BR only ever indicated 1st class on doors - possibly with the exception of Sleeping Cars?

 

 

[micklner]

LNER stopped 3rd markings at some point too. Wartime ?

[Jon4470]

2 hours ago, micklner said:

LNER stopped 3rd markings at some point too. Wartime ?

I agree.

 

The Harris book that I’m reading at the moment says that the 3 was discontinued in 1941.

 

Jon