john coffin wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2020 1:07 pm
I am trying to check the numbers in Tatlow against some GNR info I have and will see if we can find more definitive data.
That would be very interesting to see. The Pendragon book on NPCS (Tatlow) does say reused GNR 4w underframes
Regarding the photo I linked to earlier I now have a full resolution copy and it has shown a couple of other interesting deviations from the D.120 build standard. This van (exact diagram still unknown) seems to have...
A pair of electrical jumper cables on the end
A full length vacuum pipe running the along the solebar underneath the foot board
An additional vertical handrail to the left of the inward opening Guard's door. Presumably this was attached to the adjacent (outwards opening) luggage door. It seems quite unusual.
Roof vents still seem to be a mystery. There is a hint of at least three but there could be a fourth. Your guess is as good as mine.
I also agree with JW that this vehicle has fixed toplights across the board.
Reused 4w GNR underframes, then. When did the last GN 4w stock go out of service? You'd have thought they'd recycle them fairly quickly, rather than use something which had stood on the scrap line for a few years.
I agree that they might well not to want to have underframes hanging around, but as for knowing for sure when things were scrapped
that data is somewhat like hen's teeth. Some stuff is available up until Dec 31st 1922, but afterwards, much more difficult to obtain.
I do have at least one photo of an ex-GNR 3rd brake 4 wheeler still in dept use up to 1955.
So I wonder whether these vehicles were in departmental stock before stripping, and maybe that is why they were at Darlington?
I am still searching for scrapping data, but it is a tedious undertaking
Diagrams 170, 175 and 177 were built at Doncaster. It looks like Tatlow has misread the listing in Michael Harris' books. AFAIK Darlington only ever produced locos. These three classes were built on the underframes of the GNR 1905/6 metropolitan stock which became redundant after the quad arts were introduced.
The outside axleguards on diagram 120 have always seemed a bit odd to me, but maybe the axleguards, axleboxes and springs were recycled from the centre axles of six wheelers that had rebuilt into artic sets.
jwealleans wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 5:58 am
Didn't Stratford do the same thing on the Thompson BZ?
Yes. I did a comprehensive photo survey of the preserved BZ at Quorn a few years ago. In some respects the logic of putting the frame outside of the axlebox makes some sense when you look at a typical 4 wheel Gresley bogie. Also the centre axlebox on the BZ is a bit different to the outer two to accommodate side play. Photos later.
On the D.170 & D.177 Flickr photos I linked to the axleboxes, at first glance, look like LNER but maybe they are the original GNR ones that have been recycled? Especially if the 4w donor underframe has been upgraded with a minimum of money being spent. The axleguards also look like the original GNR.
Given the dimensions, it seems certain that any frame used were from ex 4 wheelers, and the last suburban type, with recessed
doors were built up to 1903, not as late as 1906. Plus 6 wheelers had stopped being built for any service before the end of 1900.
What is certain is that because of Harris's lack of real interest in pre Gresley carriages, and indeed the complexity of the task,
he made some assumptions that are not backed by fact.
I agree it seems strange to think of Darlington building rolling stock, but maybe it was actually done at Shildon. We just do not know
and should not reinforce the mistakes made by Harris.
Paul
john coffin wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 12:00 pm
I agree it seems strange to think of Darlington building rolling stock, but maybe it was actually done at Shildon. We just do not know
and should not reinforce the mistakes made by Harris.
Paul
Or, perhaps, Faverdale?
(The bodywork is largley timber?)
(Or Faverdale and Shildon and ironwork from the North Road complex.)
jwealleans wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 5:58 am
Didn't Stratford do the same thing on the Thompson BZ?
Photos later.
Photos of the Thompson BZ axle guards much later...
Outer axle has...
Short J hangers with single degree of freedom stirrups
"Standard" axlebox
7 leaf springs
Axle guard slight joggled inboard at top edge (not easy to see on this photo but I have more detailed images if interested)
6 rivets per side holding the horn cheek in place
Centre axle has...
Long J hangers with two piece multiple degree of freedom stirrups to allow axle side play swing
"Deep" axlebox with about 1.5" gap on horn cheeks to allow axle side play swing
Axlegurd box gap on horn cheeks also slightly wider to allow some fore/aft movement
6 leaf springs
Axle guard slight joggled outboard at top edge.
5 rivets per side holding the horn cheek in place
Cheers...Morgan
Last edited by 45609 on Thu Jul 30, 2020 7:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Thanks all for the info and help! These details certainly do become a minefield! Frustratingly none of these pictures are confirmed to be the dia 176. Perhaps they were a little more camera-shy than their 170/177 brethren. Perhaps this is because they were less numerous. Only 5 built for the GN section that I can see. I think I'll take the plunge and order the Five79 Dia 120 and see what I can do with it. Pending further photographic evidence, I can at least get on with the body.
45609 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 12:34 pm
...the D120 had opening toplights outboard of the luggage doors. None of the current model offerings (Chivers, Comet, D&S) capture this.
I decided to buy another Chivers D.120 van the other day mostly because I couldn't be bothered to go mining in the loft for the one I bought a few years ago. I'm correcting myself on the comment above because inspection of the sides show that the framing and rainstrips for the opening toplights is present. However, the framing on the inboard (non-opening) toplights looks a bit thick (i.e. same as the outboard toplights). A little bit of filing out would be required in the pursuit of accuracy.
An anomaly in the kit that I hadn't previously noticed is that the ends are different. One end is plain with just the moulded vertical beading. The other end has two circular raised bosses to represent the electrical jumper cable junction boxes. Surely, if a van had the electric lighting connectors it would be on both ends of the van? Interested to know people's thoughts or evidence to the contrary? From photos that I've seen so far of D.120, D.170 and D.177 vans it seems to be the latter two have the electrical connectors and the D.120 doesn't. Again, photographic evidence to disprove this would be very welcome.
For the moment cross kitting the ends from two D.120 vans would seem to be the way forward along with lots of filing and scraping to represent the non opening toplights of the D.170 etc... body. For the D.170 underframe the only way forward I can see at the moment is to scratch build out of Evergreen plasticard of the appropriate size. Mike Trice does some 3D printed GNR coach items at his Shapeways shop. For sure the buffer stocks look suitable but not sure on the outboard spring spans? Maybe Mike could comment?
Some additional photos or better still a drawing of the original 4W GNR "donor underframe" stock would be very welcome but I accept these might not exist.
Maybe the non-matching ends are the manufacturer's idea of being equally unhelpful to all buyers, regardless of which version they'd like to build? Or, if I can be silly for a little longer, perhaps you should routinely turn the vehicle around to show the correct features at the most visible end, possibly with different numbers on the two sides, and enjoy two vans for the price of one.
Most subjects, models and techniques covered in this thread are now listed in various categories on page1
Dec. 2018: Almost all images that disappeared from my own thread following loss of free remote hosting are now restored.
I don't recall my kits (from the first release) having jumper locations. I have seen at least one prototype photo showing the round bases but with no jumpers in place. It may have been withdrawn or under maintenance.
