Building NER carriages

[Chas Levin]

Only one thing for it - an experiment. In both cases, cheap-and-nasty wallet-sourced "needle files" (the type that are roughly 10cm long). Square file on the left, triangular on the right. After five passes there is a witness line on the reverse with the triangular file but not with the square; the groove from the square file is noticeably wider. My takeaway is "no need to change to my process", which is: start with a triangular file until the witness mark starts to appear; change to square file if a wider groove is needed (for example in 15 thou).
20231031_145731.jpg

Top work, David! I'd say it's a bit of a 'horses for courses' thing and even if there's a tradition of using triangular, clearly square - or a combination of both - also does the job, as proven.

[Daddyman]

Top work, David! I'd say it's a bit of a 'horses for courses' thing and even if there's a tradition of using triangular, clearly square - or a combination of both - also does the job, as proven.

Square is a bit harder to keep in the groove, though, but not sure if that's just because mine is years old and was probably not made very well in the first place. I wouldn't use it without using the triangular one first - certainly not if I was paying £168 for a carriage kit...

[Daddyman]

I missed one, I've also got the 'Special Limited Issue' DS 805 Composite Dining Car Dia 166, though you won't want that one either ..... tempt, tempt, tempt ....

Nah, corridors and dining cars are too "main line" for me...

Is DS171 a D.14?

If I built another clerestory, I'd need to factor in the cost of professional help (therapy, I mean, not modelling)...

[MikeAllerton]

I missed one, I've also got the 'Special Limited Issue' DS 805 Composite Dining Car Dia 166, though you won't want that one either ..... tempt, tempt, tempt ....

Nah, corridors and dining cars are too "main line" for me...

Is DS171 a D.14?

If I built another clerestory, I'd need to factor in the cost of professional help (therapy, I mean, not modelling)...

Yes DS171 is a D.14, DS172 is a D.5 and as you know DS173 is a D.18 but mine is going for a lot less than £169 (.... atm!)

[Lindsay G]

Just to bring some diversity to the square/triangular file issue, I've used a scrawker for deepening the fold lines on kit etches and also for starting thru' to finishing on scratch built parts. Not so sure if it would be as effective on 18/22 thou and upwards, it would certainly entail a good few passes, but can't remember now if I have had cause to.

Lindsay

[Daddyman]

Just to bring some diversity to the square/triangular file issue, I've used a scrawker for deepening the fold lines on kit etches and also for starting thru' to finishing on scratch built parts. Not so sure if it would be as effective on 18/22 thou and upwards, it would certainly entail a good few passes, but can't remember now if I have had cause to.

Lindsay

Believe It was covered in the old thread that Will linked to, Lindsay. For scratchbuilding, my process has always been: Stanley knife first, then scrawker, then triangular file, then square if needed. All of these make the groove progressively wider.

[Will L]

Incidentally, why not use a square file?

Because the file can't be held at precisely the right angle, this means the grove always has a wider angle than the file. The workflow would be something like getting the depth of the grove right and then taking excess off the shoulders.

Morning Bill, are you saying that it should be easier to hold a triangular file at an accurate angle because you're trying to maintain a flat face horizontal ly, as opposed to using a square file, where you're trying to maintain a right-angled corner pointing vertically?

Don't think that's what Bill meant. He was pointing out that filing manually you will always get a slot with a wider angle than the file.
Did this pic. to illustrate the point

filling angle.jpg

This shows just how little extra over and above the file profile you need to have a full 90 available for the fold. A square file would inevitably take more than necessary.
What a little maths will also tell you is that even in 15 thou brass unless the etched folding line is less than about .6mm wide you wont need to file away anything from the shoulders.

Only one thing for it - an experiment. In both cases, cheap-and-nasty wallet-sourced "needle files" (the type that are roughly 10cm long). Square file on the left, triangular on the right. After five passes there is a witness line on the reverse with the triangular file but not with the square; the groove from the square file is noticeably wider. My takeaway is "no need to change my process", which is: start with a triangular file until the witness mark starts to appear; change to square file if a wider groove is needed (for example in 15 thou).

Experimentation is a good thing, but what you didn't try was seeing how well the bend went after just the triangular file cut. Was the application of the square file just unnecessary extra work?

[Daddyman]

Was the application of the square file just unnecessary extra work?

Possibly, but hopefully the 5 extra strokes of the file won't take too many years off my life...

[Daddyman]

Bit of desultory work over the past couple of evenings: I suddenly noticed that the vents on the clerestory sides weren't the same in LNER-period photos as they were on the model. To recap, this is what the model looked like before - louvred vents laid flat against the clerestory sides:

20231015_202414.jpg

This matches photos of the carriages when built:

KT02270 1.jpg

However, starting I suspect from that magic date of 1908-ish, the louvred vents started to disappear and were replaced by ones which had smooth faces and seem to have been angled like the ones on the bodyside doors (these latter were not changed from the louvred type):

20210922_214152.jpg

But they weren't always angled?

20210922_214321.jpg

Here's an early shot: D.116 lettered "North Eastern Railway" with a BTP in NER green. As said, I suspect the changeover happened in 1908. Actually, I've just got it: there must have been something about the incandescent mantles, mounted in the clerestories, that made the old vents inadequate; I wonder if what we're seeing could simply be boarded-up louvre vents.

20200921_192807.jpg

Note that I think these new vents were only fitted in the cases where the louvred vents were present in the first place - carriages that were built with the all-windows-no-vents style of clerestory (many D.116s, for example - see my model a couple of pages back) did not change. However, I think the D.18 (2)2768 that I've mentioned before had three new-style vents inserted into an all-window clerestory in line with the three passenger compartment doors.

So anyway, on the model, this meant removing all the "lovingly"-placed clerestory vents, flipping them over, and placing a 1mm strip of 5 thou along their lower edges on the louvred side (my standard process for the above-door vents). The photo below shows a trio I knocked up very quickly for a talk I was giving, and the strip is out of line on the left-hand vent - this cannot happen: the result will be a vent that won't sit right. (Note that the vents in this demo photo are door vents so the louvres face out.)

79.jpg

Once that's done, a half-hearted chamfer can be filed on the backs of the strip-and-vent combination and then they can be glued on to the clerestory: standard formula = (1) Devcon Home applied on cocktail stick to clerestory sides (2) rough positioning of vents (3) phone alarm set for 6 (not 5, not 7) minutes (4) tweaking of positioning now that Devcon is nearly set.

20231101_140603 1.jpg

[DougN]

Could the louvers change to hoppers (ok bottom open versions) as these would have been easier to fabricate from timber or steel. This would have also been more weather proof as only the bottom edge would have been open. Also this could have also been a requirement as the change from gas lighting to incandescent would have required less air flow so as not to fill the compartment with CO2 from the gas burning. The other thing I can think of would be less water coming through the hoppers than the louver arrangement.

[Daddyman]

easier to fabricate ... more weather proof ... less water

I don't think these explain it, Doug, as the louvred ones remained on the doors. So it must be something to do with incandescent lighting, but why couldn't they just remove the louvred vents and fill the space with glass? - the vents were clearly unnecessary, as evinced by the "all-window" style of clerestory.
Also, why did louvred door vents on many ellipticals get these steel cowls? but not on clerestories of arc-roofs?

69 metal covers on vents.jpg

[bécasse]

The obvious purpose of the steel cowls would have been to improve air exchange through the louvred vents. Why that was deemed essential (and since the mod cost money it must have been deemed essential) only on carriages with elliptical roofs is beyond my powers of reckoning at the moment but it is just possible that it was considered a worthwhile investment on the newer carriages with many years service ahead of then rather than on older carriages whose book life was limited.

[Noel]

Why that was deemed essential (and since the mod cost money it must have been deemed essential) only on carriages with elliptical roofs is beyond my powers of reckoning at the moment

Clerestories had ventilators in their sides, so no clerestory means reduced ventilation. Don't forget most customers, especially working men, in those days smoked, commonly using pipes.The atmosphere on cold days with all the windows closed must have been quite unpleasant at best. Possibly all-window clerestories were on better class stock?

[Daddyman]

it is just possible that it was considered a worthwhile investment on the newer carriages with many years service ahead of then rather than on older carriages whose book life was limited.

I think the mod happened quite early in the ellipticals' lives, possibly in NER days, at a time when there was no intention to withdraw the clerestories - and in the event the clerestories lasted almost as long. Additionally, some ellipticals were treated to the cowls while others spent their entire lives without them, even lasting into BR days without. It's just occurred to me, though, that the ones without cowls could have been electrically lit.

Clerestories had ventilators in their sides, so no clerestory means reduced ventilation. Don't forget most customers, especially working men, in those days smoked, commonly using pipes.The atmosphere on cold days with all the windows closed must have been quite unpleasant at best. Possibly all-window clerestories were on better class stock?

No, this doesn't hold water, as the trend was to go for all-window clerestories on later builds of the same diagrams - that is, the trend was towards less ventilation, not more, regardless of class.

[Daddyman]

this is the last clerestory handrail I'll ever do

20231103_123614.jpg

(Thank you, Mike!)

[MikeAllerton]

you're welcome.

[Guy Rixon]

It's just occurred to me, though, that the ones without cowls could have been electrically lit.

(Handwaving) It's possible that gusty drafts from the louvres were messing with the flames in the gas lamps and the cowls were a way of getting smoother air-flow. This is more plausible if the lamps had flat-flame burners, as incandescent mantles ought to have protected from drafts.

[Daddyman]

It's just occurred to me, though, that the ones without cowls could have been electrically lit.

(Handwaving) It's possible that gusty drafts from the louvres were messing with the flames in the gas lamps and the cowls were a way of getting smoother air-flow. This is more plausible if the lamps had flat-flame burners, as incandescent mantles ought to have protected from drafts.

Hmm... Problem is the changeover seems to be, as with everything else on these carriages, at the moment incandescent burners come in.

[Daddyman]

With the D.5 more or less done and awaiting bolsters from MJT, I've made a start on the D.14. I know I should finish what I've got on the go (the D.18 and the D.53), but it's so nice to start on fresh brass that's not covered in sweat, tears and blood, and doesn't reek of broken dreams... So I started on the D.14.
First job is scoring the door joints on the lower half of the body - record stylus in use:

20231103_145859.jpg

I make 10 "light" passes. In case anyone wants to try this at home, this photo might show what is meant by "light", illustrating the effect of 3, 1 and 10 passes at the requisite pressure in a piece of Tamiya tape (the third cuts through the tape):

20231103_170718.jpg

There should be a slight sign of the scoring on the reverse:

20231103_170930.jpg

Then on to drilling the holes (0.5mm) for the Frogmore door hinges, 4.7mm from the lower edge with the flange still unfolded; using the vernier to score lightly:

20231103_145834.jpg

The other two hinges just go in the centre of the oval indents that D&S have etched, but I still score them lightly with the vernier to aid locating the drill.

20231103_171525.jpg

Tumblehome rolled and only then flanges scored (triangular file!) and bent over, then everything checked against one of the partitions for the correct profile:

20231103_153600.jpg

State of play last night: both main and clerestory replacement roofs cut out (the kit comes with plastic roofs), curved, and holes starting to be plotted; clerestory body folded up; underframe folded up; both sides scored, drilled for hinges and rolled:

20231104_091626.jpg

Today has seen the 5 thou strips added to the edges of both roofs (to make the 10 thou roof look like a real roof). The photo also shows 15 thou braces/body-roof fixing strips fitted (nut soldered to the upper side):

20231104_114540.jpg

20231104_132452.jpg

I then plotted the holes for the incandescent light "pips" on the top of the clerestory roof. These line up with the centre of the doors, so I checked my calculations (the Nokia has a calculator on it - 25.7s get tedious to add up after 8 of them) and marking out by laying the roof behind the sides - I've drilled too many holes in the wrong place recently, but I've drilled 73 on this carriage and only got two in the wrong place so far:

20231104_133306.jpg

Next, partitions (trying to get the unpleasant jobs out of the way): the kit only supplies 4 but a D.14 needs 7 (8 comps): photo shows 3 blanks soldered to a D&S original for shaping:

20231104_181151.jpg

Next, curved strips of 15 thou which act as braces/clerestory-to-main-roof fixing points (they each carry a nut on their upper sides):

20231104_203610.jpg

In use:

20231104_203539.jpg

Next, vents receiving backing strips of 5 thou so that they sit on the bodyside at an angle. I got a method going, processing them in the strips that they come off the etch in:

20231104_204356.jpg

A side having received hinges, door window frames, and starting to have vents glued on:

20231104_204041.jpg

That's it for today!

[Winander]

Ready for painting by Tuesday then!

You appear to be working on a sheet of glass, or is that as a result of your peripatetic lifestyle?

[Daddyman]

Ready for painting by Tuesday then!

Hope so! Grab handles will slow things down though - do two, lie down for an hour, do another two, lie down for another hour... Never managed to work out how to jig them.

You appear to be working on a sheet of glass

For some non-soldering jobs, yes. I use it a lot with a sheet of 240 sandpaper to get long lines straight - roof edges, etc.

[Hardwicke]

NER and MR rolling stock at times followed similar trends but chose different solutions. MR clerestorys lost a lot of their opening glass vents in both the clerestory and above the doors around the second decade of the 1900's. I have a few of the opening mechanisms from these and the lower window frame with ring pull. Sadly someone set fire to and destroyed the coach they came from in March 2023 and many parts simply melted. This coach was a rare survivor at the time as it had it's original design.

[Daddyman]

Got the roof finished today - 106 parts here, clerestory handrail, non-louvred side vents, and all. It's just balancing on one side here:

20231105_153911.jpg

This was the jig for filing down the 1.2mm rod for the "pips" on the clerestory roof:

20231105_085108.jpg

Got the second side finished, too - only 49 parts each on these, but still 8 grab handles to go on each side:

20231105_192151.jpg

Made a start on the ends too - 10 thou backing attached and steps done:

20231105_192035.jpg

[Will L]

I have to say I'm impressed with the quality of work your putting onto these (no mater what shape file!).

I note how you've arranged for the clerestory to bolt to the roof. If you haven't already though of it, can I suggest you take this one step further, put a (slightly U shaped for strength) cross piece on the coach bodies at ceiling level that line up with the nuts in the clerestory and bolt the whole roof down nice and tight through them. Once you have all the compartment partitions seating glassing etc in, it can get quite busy in there and I for one like to be able to get the roof off just in case.

[Daddyman]

I have to say I'm impressed with the quality of work your putting onto these (no mater what shape file!).

I note how you've arranged for the clerestory to bolt to the roof. If you haven't already though of it, can I suggest you take this one step further, put a (slightly U shaped for strength) cross piece on the coach bodies at ceiling level that line up with the nuts in the clerestory and bolt the whole roof down nice and tight through them. Once you have all the compartment partitions seating glassing etc in, it can get quite busy in there and I for one like to be able to get the roof off just in case.

Thanks, Will. I'm kind of doing what you say, but I need the clerestory to be separable from the roof (for glazing after painting), as well as having the roof separable from the carriage as you suggest. This photo shows the clerestory fixing points ringed in red, while the braces from side to side across the main roof are what bolt to similar braces between the tops of the carriage sides in the manner you suggest. U-shape hadn't occurred to me - I've tended to use 15 thou flat.

20231104_114540 2.jpg