I don't think the design of the body would require much modification to accommodate Pullman Gangways, as unlike other companies carriages with BS Gangways these NER carriages had a bowed end rather than a flat end and overhung the headstock, meaning they had less concertina than say an LMS or GWR carriage. I suspect they had a slightly larger vestibule door though.Trestrol wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 3:56 pm If I may add this. 945 was one of two built in 1924 and was Modified with Gresley features. The end windows were removed, Pullman gangways replaced British Standard And it had Gresley bogies. There were two others of the same diagram built in 1922 to standard NER mainline spec. The drawing office would have to have redrawn the diagram to facilitate the fitting of Pullman gangways as the the end frame of both body and underframe need to be radically different to take the buffer forces. I conclude if they went to all that trouble to modify these carriages to LNER mainline spec why paint or scumble them. They would spec them in teak even with NER style mouldings made in teak and varnished. We know the NERCG found varnished teak on a door frame, but would the LNER really have varnished the ends but stumbled the rest of the body. I think not. If I remember correctly other pre grouping carriage orders were continued by the LNER but non were modified in the same way as 945 and her sister. We will probably never know.
I look forward to comparing the ends of the bodies and underframes of 945 and 2118 more thoroughly.
Sawdust.