Building NER carriages

[Daddyman]

Wow and here was me thinking that the bogies were ok from D&S.

Interesting that you have done, what effectively I had done with out knowing, of adding straps to the foot boards to the bogies... I had always wondered about how the designer had thought they were going to be attached .

I watch with interest as I have a couple of kits still in the strategic reserve for "one day"..what you are doing is encouraging me to improve them even more.

The D&S bogies would probably pass muster, Doug - I just can't stand compensation. (Incidentally, in at least one of my D&S instructions there was a sketch showing you how to bend up the bogie step supports - strips are provided for them.) Thing is, though, I'm building these for the NERA journal, The Express, so I want them to be accurate historical documents of sorts, and above all to correct misleading information in the D&S instructions and the early NERA articles/publications. The record needs to be set straight: still in the past year or so, despite my best efforts to share information, I've seen a model of a clerestory built for the LNER period with battery boxes on the underframe and - wait for it - pre-1908 gas (sic) tops on the roof... Even the battery boxes are probably pushing it: early NERA articles tell us around 10% [EDIT: 20-30% in 1921-2 (Express 146); no source given] of Bain-period clerestories had electric lighting; I've found one confirmed shot in the hundreds I've looked at (note no "pips" on the clerestory roof and no gas line climbing up on to the clerestory): https://www.flickr.com/photos/irishswis ... 890893261/
But what chance do modellers have? Last night I checked a drawing by a G.R Ives which I think appeared in Model Railway News in the 70s, which actually shows the footboards in the lowered position - bravo - but with pre-1908 gas tops on the roof, an implausible combination. Yes, OK, the people in the NERA advising D&S weren't interested in the LNER period, but as I've said, their drawings are only good for the first 13 years of these carriages' lives in NER ownership (1895-1908); that leaves 15 years in NER ownership (1908-1923) with the modifications I've described, not with the fittings they've drawn and described - that is, the drawings are wrong for more of the NER period than they're right. (Their saving grace, of course, is that the changes didn't happen overnight on 01/01/1908.)
I want people to have the information I didn't have when I set out - clueless and getting no help from the instructions - to build these: what goes on the roof? what goes on the underframe? what goes on the ends? - because photos suggest what goes there isn't what the instructions say goes there.

[Chas Levin]

Excellent work David, as others have said.

Without wishing to open a can of worms or divert the flow too much, may I please ask what it is that you dislike about compensation for coaches? I'm not asking with any particular agenda as I'm still learning, just interested to hear your views. I have build several D&S carriages using the kits' bogies and they run well on my layout, but my next goal in coach building is springing as I would like to compare the two systems for myself and there's clearly a bonus in terms of authenticity.

What were the mods necessary for the Rumney bogies to run as 00? I have some to build for a couple of future projects and I will be doing them as 00.

Lastly, I'm sure I'm not the first on this one, but should you be putting any more D&S bogies in the bin, please consider me as an alternative destination for them

[billb]

These have to be made up from lots of tiny little etched discs, alternating with slightly tinier etched discs, all of which (48 of each [sic] per carriage) have to be cut from the fret and de-tabbed! (Richard's going to tell me I left the tab on one. I know, but I needed a lie-down.)

Talk about hair-shirt jobs. Didn't you think about making springs by winding soft copper wire around a mandrel?

[Daddyman]

Excellent work David, as others have said.

Without wishing to open a can of worms

Thank you, Chas.

Too late on the worms, I fear. Compensation is almost as much faff as springing for inferior results: with springing there is none of the lurching that happens with compensated vehicles, and sprung vehicles are much quieter - compensation is very noisy, especially with metal-bodied vehicles. Then there's the glide of sprung vehicles - it's a pleasure to watch them glide along silently, though that brings its own problems when they silently glide off the workbench...

What were the mods necessary for the Rumney bogies to run as 00? I have some to build for a couple of future projects and I will be doing them as 00.

Mark/Justin's Fox bogies have very clever fold-up brake yokes, but the non-hypotenuse sides of the yokes foul 00 wheels.

D&S bogies in the bin

I say "bin", but I just mean hurled into a scrap box. These haven't suffered too much in the hurling if you want them - I don't know what if anything used to be in the vacant space on the etch:

20231026_113834.jpg

[Daddyman]

Talk about hair-shirt jobs. Didn't you think about making springs by winding soft copper wire around a mandrel?

I have now. Though it doesn't sound as much fun...

[Daddyman]

fun

Wait, I've gone and used that word wrong again, haven't I?

[Chas Levin]

"Too late on the worms, I fear. Compensation is almost as much faff as springing for inferior results: with springing there is none of the lurching that happens with compensated vehicles, and sprung vehicles are much quieter - compensation is very noisy, especially with metal-bodied vehicles. Then there's the glide of sprung vehicles - it's a pleasure to watch them glide along silently, though that brings its own problems when they silently glide off the workbench..."

Thanks David, interesting. I have found very variable results with compensated coach bogies (you won't be surprised to hear) but I do have to say that the D&S system seems to work more smoothly on my admittedly very idiosyncratic layout better than other ones I've tried and with noticeable less lurching, hence the interest. I can't deny though that there's a certain noise and I hadn't read anyone else remarking on the lower noise of sprung bogies.

What were the mods necessary for the Rumney bogies to run as 00? I have some to build for a couple of future projects and I will be doing them as 00.

"Mark/Justin's Fox bogies have very clever fold-up brake yokes, but the non-hypotenuse sides of the yokes foul 00 wheels."

Interesting: I'll clearly end up doing much as you have done then, I should think.

D&S bogies in the bin

"I say "bin", but I just mean hurled into a scrap box. These haven't suffered too much in the hurling if you want them - I don't know what if anything used to be in the vacant space on the etch: 20231026_113834.jpg[/quote]"

If you're really sure you don't want them then yes please, I'd be delighted to have them: as mentioned above, I have found them pretty smooth on medium length (late-50s feet) coaches so I had already thought about laying a pair or two in stock, for possible use on other coach kits that either have rougher riding differently compensated bogies, entirely rigid metal ones or plastic ones. May I Paypal you something for them and for the postage?

I realise of course that once I build my first sprung bogies, I may be totally converted, but that's a little way in the future...

[Daddyman]

May I Paypal you something for them and for the postage?

No. Save your money for sprung ones.

But I will need your address - don't think I have it, do I? Email me.

One thing: you say you like the D&S system, but the etches in my photo seem to have two different systems - I think he had at least 3 over the years. And are we sure there's isn't an important compensatory thingy missing from the two etches in my photo which are the same?

[Chas Levin]

May I Paypal you something for them and for the postage?

No. Save your money for sprung ones.

But I will need your address - don't think I have it, do I? Email me.

One thing: you say you like the D&S system, but the etches in my photo seem to have two different systems - I think he had at least 3 over the years. And are we sure there's isn't an important compensatory thingy missing from the two etches in my photo which are the same?

Ha - the 'save your money for sprung ones' reply made me smile: it shows true dedication to your cause and admirable consistency! Very kind of you too, of course.

I will indeed email you my address.

I'm not 100% sure without comparing them to ones I have in ummade D&S kits (and the ones I have are GNR so there are differences anyway) but from your photo the two matching etches look to me to have all the parts directly relevant to the compensation mech, though I'm not sure either what - if anythiong - should be in those right-hand gaps: may I take the liberty on your thread David of asking if anyone who spots a missing piece could please let us (/me) know?

I've not seen the system on the upper, single etch: I'd be happy to try it out but you're right to highlight the fact that it's the system in the two matching etches that I've used with success before, so if you have another use - or another receipient - for that one please do use - or send - it elsewhere.

Thank you again, very kind of you, they will be going to a good home.

[Hardwicke]

The gaps in the etch look like the mounting plates under the body

[Paul Cram]

The gaps in the etch look like the mounting plates under the body

Yes that is what is missing

[Daddyman]

I'm not 100% sure without comparing them to ones I have in ummade D&S kits (and the ones I have are GNR so there are differences anyway) but from your photo the two matching etches look to me to have all the parts directly relevant to the compensation mech, though I'm not sure either what - if anythiong - should be in those right-hand gaps: may I take the liberty on your thread David of asking if anyone who spots a missing piece could please let us (/me) know?

I've not seen the system on the upper, single etch: I'd be happy to try it out but you're right to highlight the fact that it's the system in the two matching etches that I've used with success before, so if you have another use - or another receipient - for that one please do use - or send - it elsewhere

Right, I've identified which part is missing: it's what the instructions call the "coach bolster" and it goes on the underframe as the bogie attachment point:

20231026_172043.jpg

The other bogie uses this system:

20231026_172025.jpg

The good news is, I've found lots of cr... stuff in another box, and the missing parts are there, as well as some bogies made up and the missing "bolsters" (at least one of the kits had been started when I bought them).

20231026_174603.jpg

[Daddyman]

The gaps in the etch look like the mounting plates under the body

Yes that is what is missing

The gaps in the etch look like the mounting plates under the body

Thanks. Got there at the same time as you.

[Chas Levin]

Thank you David, very kind of you to go to so much trouble! And thank you Paul and Hardwicke for your input too.

Actually what's referred to there as the 'coach bolster' and that you're also calling mounting plates (more logical name I think) would probably have been one of the easier parts to fabricate and I was about to reply with that thought, but I then read further and laughed at your "The good news is, I've found lots of cr... stuff in another box".

Thank you again, and apologies for taking up your thread with a side issue!

[Will L]

As best as I can remember this, the D&S NER clerestory coaches were Danny's (the D in D&S the S was his wife)first effort at an etched bogie coach kit and date from the 70's. He used a compensation design which I think originated within the Scalefour society. This is the one in David first picture

D&S old.jpg

These compensated OK but friction between the axles and the 2 compensation beams in one bogies and 1 in the other made them rather resistant to rolling. In addition the compensation beams bend out of straight around the pivot holes in the middle over time. We can all agree they were not a particularly good idea and I don't think Danny used the design again.

Davids second picture shows Danny's own design of compensation which got used on later kits and actually works rather well.

D&S new.jpg

Most of you will know I am a fan of sprung suspension, and while I will ultimately accept a sprung bogie will ride better than a compensated one, the ride improvements given from springing fixed axles are considerably more than from springing bogies. So I suspect many of us will be quite happy with the performance of the later design bogies.

Interestingly, the original design of bogie does lend itself to a fairly simple sprung conversion.

The spring pad items that also caused comment (and a considerably amount of faff to assemble) also evolved into a nice turned brass item in later kits which made assembly a lot easier.

The NER kits were Danny's first effort, and as good as anything else available when he did them. There were a few possible improvements to his basic coach design which he did include in later kits over time. But even the NER clerestories make up well in to a good looking coach, and frankly I don't know of many coach kits that wont produce a few historical anomalies if you your working at the level of accuracy David is aiming at and to a specific date. An addendum to the original instructions pointing out the possible variations would be a service to anybody who still has inbuilt examples, but shouldn't be seen as devaluing an excellent kit.

Danny did lots of different coaches and while I'm sure he became aware of this sort of issues he doesn't seem to have gone in for reworking his earlier attempts, probably because it makes little economic sense as most sales came shortly after the original introduction.

When I made up my set of NER Clerestories (as transferred to the GER section of the LNER), the footboards all lined up, but whether at early or late levels you'll need to ask David. What I did find that the central ones between the bogies where vulnerable to handling and I ended up soldering a couple of stiff wires side to side on the underside of the steps which reinforced them nicely.

[Chas Levin]

Interesting stuff Will - I was wondering which were the earlier design. I've never seen a kit with that earlier design in, but I've not built an (ex-)NER coach as yet so that may be why, as I'm rather GNR-centric.

I have certainly found the same as you in regard to the very thin stepboard supports though and, like you, I've added thin wire behind them, which renders them considerably more able to withstand careful handling.

I'm sure you're right too about Danny's disinclination to revise kits because of that 'golden period' following first release being the main sales time. It does provide us with the opportunity to customise the details ourselves though, doesn't it, which - for those who enjoy doing so - makes building them even more enjoyable.

[Paul Cram]

I believe that the early kits are all hand drawn and therefore considerably more work to change

[Daddyman]

Last few jobs on the D.5 have been the final details on the underframe, and detailing the clerestory.

One of the questions I had when setting out was what the end details on these carriages looked like in LNER days. Photos showed that the vacuum standpipe kinked from a side position to a central one - this is a crop from the famous Casserley shot at Kirkby Stephen:

20200920_091607.jpg

The question then was did it kink the same way at each end, and was every carriage the same. No, was the answer. There seems to be no logic. But I managed to find two photos in the NERA archive which showed the same carriage from different ends, and these show that the standpipe bends in the same orientation at each end - that is, it bends in a different orientation, but towards the same solebar:

43 same carrige.jpg

43 same carriage2.jpg

And, no, it's not necessarily the solebar that the vacuum pipe runs down:

59b LSDC115.jpg

That means that on one end the piece of pipe linking the solebar pipe with the standpipe has to make a longer journey along the lower edge of the buffer beam than on the other:

20231026_184251.jpg

20231025_182700.jpg

You can also see I've added the chain for the steam heating pipe to the b.beam, though I don't at present have a plan for the s/h connection - I can't quite work out what it looks like, or find any good castings, or see how to scratchbuild it.

I mentioned earlier that I leave the stubs of the footboard-support straps on the bogie inner frame, to show me where to position my replacement straps. Well, the final set of bogies (for the D.53) arrived midweek (thanks, Mark) and I thought a photo might show more clearly what I mean - straps still in situ at the top of the photo, stubs only at the bottom:

20231025_135633.jpg

Other work has have been on detailing the clerestory. First was to lay the pipes on the roof top. These are 0.3 wire and have a chicane at the end in order to meet the pipe on the body ends. I lightly scored a line with the Vernier (thanks David B) along the roof where the main pipe needed to go (5.80-6.00mm in from the edge should do it), then tack-soldered it in good light - the roof had become quite tarnished, which was handy as it helped show up the scored line; marking with a Sharpie is not an option as they (Sharpies) resist solder. The little feeds to the lamp tops are a right pain and I've been dreading them for months. However, they were fairly painless this time. Previously, I've cut a piece of 0.3 exactly the right length and faffed it into place with a cocktail stick and the soldering iron. But this time I drilled hard up against the pots so that I could have an L-shaped piece going down into the roof (easier to hold) on which only the visible stub needed cutting to length.

20231028_202550.jpg

Final job on the clerestory was the handrail that runs along its length at roof level. This is again 0.3 wire (I keep telling myself guitar string would be better - less likely to bend out of shape - but this is the last clerestory handrail I'll ever do, so no time to start innovating). The wire is bent to exactly the right length by hook and by crook (wrong length and the handrail will bow up or down or in or out) and held in place with twizzles of 0.193 brass wire:

20231028_200122.jpg

Once the twizzles are all threaded on to the handrail, and the holes drilled and broached to 0.4, they (the twizzles) can be soldered in place using an offcut of 40 thou to space them off the sides of the clerestory:

20231028_195325.jpg

Once all soldered up, the twizzles can be bent upwards as the pillars are on the real thing:

Dgm 116 BR days 2.jpg

The clerestory handrail is one of those jobs that needs to be "left to soak" overnight, to see if I'm happy with it tomorrow. Those on the real thing weren't particularly straight, but that wouldn't look good on a model:

20200920_091636.jpg

There's one final thing to undo and redo on the main roof, which I won't admit to until it's done, lest people think I'm obsessive... I realise I've also forgotten the feeds from the toilet lamp hoods up on to the clerestory roof - to meet the long gas line. Two jobs tomorrow, then, and that'll be the end of it.

Incidentally, I was re-reading the article in the Express 146 on this diagram and it seems the first 1st-class compartment from the left in this photo...

20231015_195356.jpg

... was often downgraded in later years to a 3rd - a blurry undated photo seems to confirm this, though this one, taken in the early 1930s I'd guess suggests I'm pushing it (any ideas when the non-wrist-breaking toolboxes came in, Dave? The loco has no balance weights, which would mean pre-1932, but then I have a feeling J26s didn't get them; 525 was shopped in 1932 and 1935 and I have a feeling from the safety valve trumpet and the windjabber that this is closer to the earlier date):

44.jpg

Anyway, I've removed the "1" transfer from the compartment in question. I was impressed how well they (Fox) had stuck to the Ronseal.

[Chas Levin]

Very nice work David! Please excuse me if this is a silly question, but what was the purpose of the clerestory handrails? Was it for lamp or ventilator maintenance perhaps, or cleaning?

[Daddyman]

Thank you, Chas!

Re the clerestory handrail, I don't know, to be honest - I just build 'em; I don't ask questions... But my guess would be the same as yours. The lamp "funnels" on the original arrangement of lighting/roofs seemed to swing over to one side...

KT02270.jpg

... to be filled or otherwise fiddled with, so staff were definitely up and about on the roofs.

I don't think incandescent filaments were changed from the roof, but from inside the carriage (Bill will probably know), so I suspect the handrails were obsolete from 1908, though I have never seen them removed.

I take it the bogies didn't arrive? - I posted them 1st class yesterday.

[Chas Levin]

Interesting; I've never noticed handrails on clerestories before, but that's highly likely to be another case of my unobservant picture consumption. Did other companies fit them? I shall have to have a look through some books...

No bogies as yet, but the post can be quite variable these days. 1st class sometimes takes a couple of days - especially over the weekend - but on the other hand, 2nd class sometimes arrives very quickly: swings and roundabouts...

[Mark Tatlow]

David,

On the clerstorys i am working on (a d.18 brake), i had a devil of a job folding the clerstory side over because the fold line was not wide enough. Thus the fold would ony go over about 70 degrees and because this d.18 is all windows with no solid panels, it started to buckle.

I fought the firs one over but if this is a feature (I don't recall it being an issue on the motor trailers i have done) then i will have to cut them off.

Have you had this issue?

[Daddyman]

unobservant picture consumption. Did other companies fit them? I shall have to have a look through some books...

I think it was my dad that spotted them, and probably said something to the effect that a real son would fit them. Or else did I want to be kept in the will - something like that.

No idea on other companies, I'm afraid. I'd keep away from the books, though - you might find handrails.

[Daddyman]

David,

On the clerstorys i am working on (a d.18 brake), i had a devil of a job folding the clerstory side over because the fold line was not wide enough. Thus the fold would ony go over about 70 degrees and because this d.18 is all windows with no solid panels, it started to buckle.

I fought the firs one over but if this is a feature (I don't recall it being an issue on the motor trailers i have done) then i will have to cut them off.

Have you had this issue?

I seem to remember having this problem with my first clerestory, also a D.18. I cut the sides off from the other bit.

Remember that the D&S clerestory etch for the D.18 is the later style, so you'll need to number accordingly: I don't know at what number or date the new design came in, or whether earlier builds were retro-fitted after the design change, but a photo in the Stainmore book shows 22768 (2768 in your period), and presumably any number above that is safe. EDIT: Sadler draws 1840 with the original design of clerestory (and a photo in Record 2 shows the same vehicle), and 3323 with the later.

[Chas Levin]

unobservant picture consumption. Did other companies fit them? I shall have to have a look through some books...

I think it was my dad that spotted them, and probably said something to the effect that a real son would fit them. Or else did I want to be kept in the will - something like that.

Good grief: if I didn't know better, I'd say we had the same dad!