Wright writes.....

[PMP]

29 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Ah, but what you are saying is that your layout ethos differs from Tony Wright's - absolutely nothing wring with that. But my question was really how much more difficult would it be to do what Tony has done for Little Bytham in 1958, if the date was set a generation earlier, or two generations.

If you’re looking specifically at Little Bytham Tony has mentioned in the past a ‘blind spot’ for some goods stock, and the practicalities of having to limit the trains to a good representation of a typical traffic flow, due space. So you could argue that as the starting point hasn’t got true fidelity, (for good reason) to the prototype, that any other rendition in earlier or later era’s, is just as valid if that too has compromise’s. You may find that if someone had an unlimited budget, the task may well be easier.

Edited July 10, 2022 by PMP
Clarity

[APOLLO]

It's an ever changing world, us old uns who remember steam (1963 - 1968 for me) are old and popping off at a fair rate of knots.

 

I went to the East Lancashire Railway Diesel Gala last Saturday, I was surprised by the attendance, quite a lot of folks of all ages there. These two locos were the attraction to me (age 70). All is not lost on railway interest by any means.

 

 

 

I was planning a ride behind a 68 sometime, but not in a Mk 1 carriage !!!!!!!!!!

 

Interesting comments re S/H track, the price of brand new Peco pointwork is getting eye watering, not that I'll be buying much more.

 

Brit15

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PMP]

12 hours ago, MarkC said:

. Your comment about the dealer's preference, for easy resale, of dead frog Code 100 points over live frog Code 75, is a perfect example - the live frog trackwork requires a little (not much, in my opinion) more thought & effort to wire it up.

 

 

I think it more likely that the fact it was Cd75 was more of an issue than electrofrog. Cd100 is by far the more popular and is compatible with set track. Second hand track is never a great seller as it’s difficult to determine wear and tear, whereas stock and locos are easy to see if they function or not. Electrofrog can easily be set up to run as blade contact only with only a few wires so I think that wouldn’t be a big deterrent. Most retailers I know of tend to have much smaller stock (or none) of Cd75 the market being much smaller.

[MarkC]

5 minutes ago, PMP said:

I think it more likely that the fact it was Cd75 was more of an issue than electrofrog. Cd100 is by far the more popular and is compatible with set track. Second hand track is never a great seller as it’s difficult to determine wear and tear, whereas stock and locos are easy to see if they function or not. Electrofrog can easily be set up to run as blade contact only with only a few wires so I think that wouldn’t be a big deterrent. Most retailers I know of tend to have much smaller stock (or none) of Cd75 the market being much smaller.

Mmm, that is another possibility, yes. However, doesn't all modern RTR work with Code 75?

[PMP]

18 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

Interesting comments re S/H track, the price of brand new Peco pointwork is getting eye watering, not that I'll be buying much more.

 

Brit15

 

Medium radius electrofrog Cd75 OO/HO point is roughly £18.00, I don’t think that’s too eye watering a price. A pint in London is easily north of a fiver.

 

If you want the much more labour intensive Cd75 bullhead points they are £35-40 each IIRC.  More expensive certainly, but you’re paying for them to be hand built in the UK, and that’s partly what ‘Made in Britain’ costs.

[PMP]

1 minute ago, MarkC said:

Mmm, that is another possibility, yes. However, doesn't all modern RTR work with Code 75?

Yep. Doesn’t mean people buy it like they do Cd100 though. 

[Compound2632]

59 minutes ago, PMP said:

If you’re looking specifically at Little Bytham Tony has mentioned in the past a ‘blind spot’ for some goods stock, and the practicalities of having to limit the trains to a good representation of a typical traffic flow, due space. So you could argue that as the starting point hasn’t got true fidelity, (for good reason) to the prototype, that any other rendition in earlier or later era’s, is just as valid if that too has compromise’s. You may find that if someone had an unlimited budget, the task may well be easier.

 

I understand the limitations of Tony's exercise but he has gone to considerable pains to represent accurately the particular trains he has modelled - if I've understood correctly, it's not been a question of "any diner will do". That search for fidelity in the representation of complete individual trains is what I like most about Little Bytham (among its many admirable features).

[Tony Wright]

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I understand the limitations of Tony's exercise but he has gone to considerable pains to represent accurately the particular trains he has modelled - if I've understood correctly, it's not been a question of "any diner will do". That search for fidelity in the representation of complete individual trains is what I like most about Little Bytham (among its many admirable features).

Thanks Stephen,

 

I've been able to 'achieve' the 'correct' trains on Little Bytham only as part of being in a group (as you know). 'Correct' needs qualification, and I would be very twitchy should anyone try to copy what they see on LB, thinking that it's always 'accurate'. I am getting better; the likes of Robert Carroll have indicated 'incorrect' vehicles in sets, which I've now replaced. Even my goods trains are now more-accurate, thanks to comments on here and greater observation of prototype pictures (there's a cracking shot of the Scotch Goods in one recent book behind 60028, but, typically, I can't find it now). 

 

I think what might be partly forgotten is the time taken to build the correct stock for a large layout. My oldest loco running on LB (not the oldest one I've ever built - that's long-gone) is almost 50 years old (built in the year of my marriage to Mo). Some of my BSL Thompsons are just as superannuated, but they still fit the bill; at least in 'layout rakes', not to be viewed at the closest quarters.

 

I suppose the 'ideal' is consistency, but it takes a very long time. A lifetime's modelling if one does everything oneself (not me, I'm afraid). That said, I wouldn't have that much interest in a system where just about everything has been 'bought-in' - made by professionals, not by the owner. I don't have the slightest problem in being part of a team which creates a large layout (trading practical skills as it were), but unless I have a personal, creative story to tell about a layout, all I'll be is a reporter or observer. That said, I have photographed some splendid creations made by professionals, but, at least to me, they're much more 'worthy' if the owner is one of the principal modellers as well (the latest York layout, for instance).  

 

Speaking of York....................

 

 

As is known, I'm steadily culling any RTR locos I still have, no matter how much-altered they might be. I was delighted when 60054 was purchased for service on York. I renumbered/renamed it, detailed and altered this Hornby A3, and Tom Foster weathered it. It ran on LB. Now with full DCC-on-board (including sound!), it fits in rather well (as does 60502, and there will be more). At least they're now being used, and their acquisition frees up time for the vast amount of work still needed on York. 

 

There is no need now for Little Bytham constructional time; it's as finished as any model railway might claim to be.

 

Instead, I turn my time to more loco/stock building. Here's the latest I've started................

 

 

A 3D-printed ex-GC 'Barnum' brake. 

 

I've been asked by the guy who's produced it to 'build it' and report accordingly. It already runs well.

 

Watch this space.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

15 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

A 3D-printed ex-GC 'Barnum' brake. 

 

I'm always a sucker for a bit of quality carriage modelling, whatever the period, but if it's not a BR Mk 1 so much the better!

[gr.king]

11 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Stephen,

 

I've been able to 'achieve' the 'correct' trains on Little Bytham only as part of being in a group (as you know). 'Correct' needs qualification, and I would be very twitchy should anyone try to copy what they see on LB, thinking that it's always 'accurate'. I am getting better; the likes of Robert Carroll have indicated 'incorrect' vehicles in sets, which I've now replaced. Even my goods trains are now more-accurate, thanks to comments on here and greater observation of prototype pictures (there's a cracking shot of the Scotch Goods in one recent book behind 60028, but, typically, I can't find it now). 

 

I think what might be partly forgotten is the time taken to build the correct stock for a large layout. My oldest loco running on LB (not the oldest one I've ever built - that's long-gone) is almost 50 years old (built in the year of my marriage to Mo). Some of my BSL Thompsons are just as superannuated, but they still fit the bill; at least in 'layout rakes', not to be viewed at the closest quarters.

 

I suppose the 'ideal' is consistency, but it takes a very long time. A lifetime's modelling if one does everything oneself (not me, I'm afraid). That said, I wouldn't have that much interest in a system where just about everything has been 'bought-in' - made by professionals, not by the owner. I don't have the slightest problem in being part of a team which creates a large layout (trading practical skills as it were), but unless I have a personal, creative story to tell about a layout, all I'll be is a reporter or observer. That said, I have photographed some splendid creations made by professionals, but, at least to me, they're much more 'worthy' if the owner is one of the principal modellers as well (the latest York layout, for instance).  

 

Speaking of York....................

 

 

As is known, I'm steadily culling any RTR locos I still have, no matter how much-altered they might be. I was delighted when 60054 was purchased for service on York. I renumbered/renamed it, detailed and altered this Hornby A3, and Tom Foster weathered it. It ran on LB. Now with full DCC-on-board (including sound!), it fits in rather well (as does 60502, and there will be more). At least they're now being used, and their acquisition frees up time for the vast amount of work still needed on York. 

 

There is no need now for Little Bytham constructional time; it's as finished as any model railway might claim to be.

 

Instead, I turn my time to more loco/stock building. Here's the latest I've started................

 

 

A 3D-printed ex-GC 'Barnum' brake. 

 

I've been asked by the guy who's produced it to 'build it' and report accordingly. It already runs well.

 

Watch this space.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

Diverted from track laying by excessive heat and humidity in the loft, I've started "building" / re-building /"refining" a couple of those 3D printed Barnums that came my way in mid-May when I was too busy with other matters to make an immediate start on them. As is often the case, I'm finding that completion could be quite quick and straightforward if you accept the quality and details "as received" but it becomes a much more complicated and time-consuming process if improvements or alterations are attempted.

Mine still required installation of the partitions between the saloons and the toilets, which has involved plenty of work with a file to get a good fit, and plenty of clearing up of white dust afterwards. In fact the interiors as a whole appear to be a very tight fit (or not quite a true fit) within the space allowed in the bodyshell. I've also decided to reinforce the solebars and headstocks to make them stay as straight as possible. The printed detail is all lovely, but the material is brittle, so take care...

I have not yet worked out how it might be possible to slide correctly pre-shaped truss rods into place through the printed queen posts, past the V hangers and into the oblique sockets in the undersides of the solebars, without braking anything. I'll be looking for ideas.

[t-b-g]

12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Stephen,

 

I've been able to 'achieve' the 'correct' trains on Little Bytham only as part of being in a group (as you know). 'Correct' needs qualification, and I would be very twitchy should anyone try to copy what they see on LB, thinking that it's always 'accurate'. I am getting better; the likes of Robert Carroll have indicated 'incorrect' vehicles in sets, which I've now replaced. Even my goods trains are now more-accurate, thanks to comments on here and greater observation of prototype pictures (there's a cracking shot of the Scotch Goods in one recent book behind 60028, but, typically, I can't find it now). 

 

I think what might be partly forgotten is the time taken to build the correct stock for a large layout. My oldest loco running on LB (not the oldest one I've ever built - that's long-gone) is almost 50 years old (built in the year of my marriage to Mo). Some of my BSL Thompsons are just as superannuated, but they still fit the bill; at least in 'layout rakes', not to be viewed at the closest quarters.

 

I suppose the 'ideal' is consistency, but it takes a very long time. A lifetime's modelling if one does everything oneself (not me, I'm afraid). That said, I wouldn't have that much interest in a system where just about everything has been 'bought-in' - made by professionals, not by the owner. I don't have the slightest problem in being part of a team which creates a large layout (trading practical skills as it were), but unless I have a personal, creative story to tell about a layout, all I'll be is a reporter or observer. That said, I have photographed some splendid creations made by professionals, but, at least to me, they're much more 'worthy' if the owner is one of the principal modellers as well (the latest York layout, for instance).  

 

Speaking of York....................

 

 

As is known, I'm steadily culling any RTR locos I still have, no matter how much-altered they might be. I was delighted when 60054 was purchased for service on York. I renumbered/renamed it, detailed and altered this Hornby A3, and Tom Foster weathered it. It ran on LB. Now with full DCC-on-board (including sound!), it fits in rather well (as does 60502, and there will be more). At least they're now being used, and their acquisition frees up time for the vast amount of work still needed on York. 

 

There is no need now for Little Bytham constructional time; it's as finished as any model railway might claim to be.

 

Instead, I turn my time to more loco/stock building. Here's the latest I've started................

 

 

A 3D-printed ex-GC 'Barnum' brake. 

 

I've been asked by the guy who's produced it to 'build it' and report accordingly. It already runs well.

 

Watch this space.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

A bit too modern for me but that certainly does look like a Barnum. With the growing number of 3D printed items now becoming available, I have wondered just how they are changing the hobby. Will the days of etched and cast kits soon be over?

 

I am not a "stick in the mud" solderer of kits who thinks everything should be cast or etched metal. I am quite happy working in wood, card, plastic or anything else but I do wonder how such 3D models compare in the enjoyment of construction and satisfaction stakes compared to more traditional kits. Much of my enjoyment from the hobby is in that actual construction of the models. Whether that be from a kit or from scratch. Sitting at the workbench with tools in my hands, fettling bits of metal or plastic so that they fit together well.

 

I am just not quite sure how a one part body, already substantially complete, would compare in that satisfaction. You probably still have to fit some details like the handrails and the glazing but to me 99% of the "fun bit" is done for you before you start.

 

It would certainly be quicker and easier than, say, the D & S kit or the dreaded Jidenco version of a Barnum and maybe that is the way forward for the hobby and people like me will be left behind.

 

I suppose it all depends on what we want from the hobby. Do we want a Barnum as quickly and easily as possible or do we want to savour the experience of spending quite a few more hours assembling one from a more basic set of components?

 

I know which I prefer but I am interested in what others think.

 

Having said that, I have just been fitting 100 door protective grills and 100 grab handles into some carriages, which required 400 holes drilling and opening out and 500 bends in bits of brass wire, so even "normal" construction is not always that exciting and much fun. 

[Chamby]

14 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

...I suppose it all depends on what we want from the hobby. Do we want a Barnum as quickly and easily as possible or do we want to savour the experience of spending quite a few more hours assembling one from a more basic set of components?

 

I know which I prefer but I am interested in what others think.

 

It depends very much on your circumstances and modelling interests.  

 

Your question basically asks, which is more important, enjoying the modelling journey or arriving at the destination?   I agree that enjoying the journey is absolutely essential, but when the destination is to build a good sized model railway, and the project was only started upon reaching retirement, in my case I have to accelerate the journey in places.  

 

That means, for now at least, using RTR where it is deemed good enough, and build the other essential parts that aren’t available.  A bit like Tony's girder bridge... it’ll do for now but if I am blessed enough to have sufficient time available to me, then there is plenty of scope for an upgrade down the line.

 

Right now, something like a Barnum coach kit is relatively low on my list of priorities.  Scratch building a station has been my focus of late, consuming much of last winter - and expanding the fiddle yard will come next.  I guess that makes me less of a kit builder and more of an ‘operator’ for now, as that seems to be the priority driving my activities at the moment.  I am sure though, that as my model railway matures, taking more time to build bespoke items of stock will become a much greater emphasis re: what I do.

[thegreenhowards]

37 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

A bit too modern for me but that certainly does look like a Barnum. With the growing number of 3D printed items now becoming available, I have wondered just how they are changing the hobby. Will the days of etched and cast kits soon be over?

 

I am not a "stick in the mud" solderer of kits who thinks everything should be cast or etched metal. I am quite happy working in wood, card, plastic or anything else but I do wonder how such 3D models compare in the enjoyment of construction and satisfaction stakes compared to more traditional kits. Much of my enjoyment from the hobby is in that actual construction of the models. Whether that be from a kit or from scratch. Sitting at the workbench with tools in my hands, fettling bits of metal or plastic so that they fit together well.

 

I am just not quite sure how a one part body, already substantially complete, would compare in that satisfaction. You probably still have to fit some details like the handrails and the glazing but to me 99% of the "fun bit" is done for you before you start.

 

It would certainly be quicker and easier than, say, the D & S kit or the dreaded Jidenco version of a Barnum and maybe that is the way forward for the hobby and people like me will be left behind.

 

I suppose it all depends on what we want from the hobby. Do we want a Barnum as quickly and easily as possible or do we want to savour the experience of spending quite a few more hours assembling one from a more basic set of components?

 

I know which I prefer but I am interested in what others think.

 

Having said that, I have just been fitting 100 door protective grills and 100 grab handles into some carriages, which required 400 holes drilling and opening out and 500 bends in bits of brass wire, so even "normal" construction is not always that exciting and much fun. 

I think there are (at least) two issues here. 
 

One is that for the 3D printer themselves a large part of the satisfaction is in the cad design. I think they would see this as the modern day equivalent of metal or plasticard bashing - Just done on a pc as the tool of choice for younger generations. I suspect a lot of 3D printing is done primarily for the designer and, maybe, one or two friends.

 

The other is, as Chamby says, whether you build kits for the fun of building them, or as a necessary evil to get the rolling stock required to stock your layout. I suspect most of us are between those two extremes, but if stocking a layout is your primary driver then easy 3d kits are a godsend.

 

Andy

[gr.king]

I'd built two brass OO Barnums "the proper way" some years ago (about 20 it turns out...) and had long wanted a couple more, but the fluctuating availability of the Jidenco / Falcon kits over time, the cost, the time taken to build (and correct) them to the required standard, and my desire/need to spend time on other things too meant that the other two just never happened. I sensed the prospect of RTR models or better kits from John Fozard at one stage, but fate intervened in an ugly manner to extinguish that hope. Hence I jumped at the recent chance of some "easy to complete" 3D printed items.

[t-b-g]

17 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

I think there are (at least) two issues here. 
 

One is that for the 3D printer themselves a large part of the satisfaction is in the cad design. I think they would see this as the modern day equivalent of metal or plasticard bashing - Just done on a pc as the tool of choice for younger generations. I suspect a lot of 3D printing is done primarily for the designer and, maybe, one or two friends.

 

The other is, as Chamby says, whether you build kits for the fun of building them, or as a necessary evil to get the rolling stock required to stock your layout. I suspect most of us are between those two extremes, but if stocking a layout is your primary driver then easy 3d kits are a godsend.

 

Andy

 

Absolutely. I have never had a "grand plan" for some lifetime project so trying to progress a big project quickly has never been an issue for me. All that matters to me is that I am enjoying myself doing things that I like doing.

 

If I consider the satisfaction I get sitting at a computer to the satisfaction I get from soldering something together neatly, there is no comparison.

 

I fully accept that our lives are ever more increasingly dominated by technology and computers and I am happy to embrace it for some things (like RMWeb) but when it comes to making models, I like to see that as an escape form the modern world, rather than an extension of it.

 

I fully appreciate that I may be very much in a minority and I wouldn't dream of saying that others should be the same but I did just wonder how people other than me feel about whether the two approaches gave different levels of satisfaction and enjoyment in the building.

[PMP]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

A bit too modern for me but that certainly does look like a Barnum. With the growing number of 3D printed items now becoming available, I have wondered just how they are changing the hobby. Will the days of etched and cast kits soon be over?

 

I very much doubt it if the military modelling fraternity are anything to use as a yardstick. In terms of quality in general terms their 3D printing is ahead of us, and their etches easily stand comparison with the best of ours.

 

One key difference is their prints and etches rarely have ‘work’ to do in an operational context and perhaps need to be less robust than railway items. So long as designer/builders use the appropriate materials for the job, I see more benefits than downsides, and if a section is ‘at risk’ it’s likely in my opinion to be the white metal casting area that will see inroads by 3D printing.

[cb900f]

Just a general question with regards to 3d printing.

 

No doubt it depends on the plastic used in the process, but how resilient/brittle is the plastic in the finished model ?  I'm sure Tony built a 3D loco some time back and parts broke off before he had basically started ?

 

Pete

[polybear]

43 minutes ago, cb900f said:

Just a general question with regards to 3d printing.

 

No doubt it depends on the plastic used in the process, but how resilient/brittle is the plastic in the finished model ?  I'm sure Tony built a 3D loco some time back and parts broke off before he had basically started ?

 

Pete

 

I'd also be concerned to know how the material behaves with age - is there a risk of it getting (more?) brittle, for example?  Also the same concern could extend to some adhesives which could be used.

[Tony Wright]

A few things to catch up on.

 

Thanks for all the recent, thought-provoking comments.

 

I've progressed with the Barnum.......

 

 

To the extent that it's almost painting time!

 

I honestly don't think 3D-printed resin is the material for me. No buffers were supplied, but when I tried to open out the resin shanks to take the buffers' splines, they shattered like (white) chocolate, straight from the fridge! The brass replacements aren't the right form in the shanks, but they're the nearest I have in stock. They'll have to do, especially if I fix a step to the shanks' tops. 

 

As mentioned, I've been asked to report on this coach's construction (I'll write it up for BRM). It's certainly a very rapid way of producing a coach, but it's not an approach which really appeals to me. Accepting (what must be) my inherent clumsiness, the material is very brittle. That said, it does look like a Barnum (it'll be painted in BR carmine/cream). 

 

Give me brass/nickel silver, solder, flux and asbestos fingers, and I'm happy! 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Speaking of metal-construction...........

 

 

I actually did a bit of work on this Nu-Cast Armstrong Goods over the weekend at Ruddington (for the very first time, I made not a penny for CRUK by repairing anything). One loco claimed to be 'dead', yet ran perfectly on my test track without my doing anything. Another was a wretched split-chassis abomination, for which I could do nothing. 

 

I've now found out that the customer wants a later style of tender. Does anyone know who makes a suitable 2,500 gal tender in kit form? 

[Tony Wright]

As mentioned, two of my much-modified RTR locos are now running on York..........

 

 

60054 on express on LB................

 

 

And now, 'resting' on 50A. 

 

 

York-allocated A2/2 60502 on fast goods work on LB. 

 

 

And now, at 'home'. 

 

As I say, I'm delighted that these 'unused' locos now see service at York. Both Hornby items are very good at source, and repay in realism renumbering/renaming/detailing/weathering, the last-mentioned the work of Tom Foster and Geoff Haynes respectively.

 

I'm not claiming that the equivalents I've made are better - far from it, but those equivalents represent my modelling philosophy far more-accurately. I've made them. 

 

 

[t-b-g]

34 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

A few things to catch up on.

 

Thanks for all the recent, thought-provoking comments.

 

I've progressed with the Barnum.......

 

 

To the extent that it's almost painting time!

 

I honestly don't think 3D-printed resin is the material for me. No buffers were supplied, but when I tried to open out the resin shanks to take the buffers' splines, they shattered like (white) chocolate, straight from the fridge! The brass replacements aren't the right form in the shanks, but they're the nearest I have in stock. They'll have to do, especially if I fix a step to the shanks' tops. 

 

As mentioned, I've been asked to report on this coach's construction (I'll write it up for BRM). It's certainly a very rapid way of producing a coach, but it's not an approach which really appeals to me. Accepting (what must be) my inherent clumsiness, the material is very brittle. That said, it does look like a Barnum (it'll be painted in BR carmine/cream). 

 

Give me brass/nickel silver, solder, flux and asbestos fingers, and I'm happy! 

 

 

 

An interesting shape of door grab handles Tony. I have seen two different designs in photos of the real thing but neither was like that. Is it based on a photo perhaps showing third type that I am not aware of?

[davidw]

38 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

As mentioned, two of my much-modified RTR locos are now running on York..........

 

 

60054 on express on LB................

 

 

And now, 'resting' on 50A. 

 

 

York-allocated A2/2 60502 on fast goods work on LB. 

 

 

And now, at 'home'. 

 

As I say, I'm delighted that these 'unused' locos now see service at York. Both Hornby items are very good at source, and repay in realism renumbering/renaming/detailing/weathering, the last-mentioned the work of Tom Foster and Geoff Haynes respectively.

 

I'm not claiming that the equivalents I've made are better - far from it, but those equivalents represent my modelling philosophy far more-accurately. I've made them. 

 

 

Do you know when York will appear in BRM Tony?

[gr.king]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

A few things to catch up on.

 

Thanks for all the recent, thought-provoking comments.

 

I've progressed with the Barnum.......

 

 

To the extent that it's almost painting time!

 

I honestly don't think 3D-printed resin is the material for me. No buffers were supplied, but when I tried to open out the resin shanks to take the buffers' splines, they shattered like (white) chocolate, straight from the fridge! The brass replacements aren't the right form in the shanks, but they're the nearest I have in stock. They'll have to do, especially if I fix a step to the shanks' tops. 

 

As mentioned, I've been asked to report on this coach's construction (I'll write it up for BRM). It's certainly a very rapid way of producing a coach, but it's not an approach which really appeals to me. Accepting (what must be) my inherent clumsiness, the material is very brittle. That said, it does look like a Barnum (it'll be painted in BR carmine/cream). 

 

Give me brass/nickel silver, solder, flux and asbestos fingers, and I'm happy! 

 

 

Should the doorway handrails on Barnums, even in the plainer style, be somewhat fancier than those you've fitted? How did you thread the truss rods (nickel silver?) through the queen posts etc and get both ends into the oblique sockets in the floor without breaking anything please. I'm intrigued to know whether the rods are all one piece, and when the bends were formed.

PS - I didn't see that the question about the handrails has already been asked.

Edited July 11, 2022 by gr.king
added info

[micklner]

Variations here

 

 

https://www.steve-banks.org/gcr/339-gcr-barnum-carriages