adrianbs wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:21 pm
Hi Folks Depends what is meant by 1948 !! Until September, after the exchange trials finished, the Dyno car was almost certainly lined with the lettering as on the Rapido V2 model, or at least almost the same, only the number having been correctly changed from the 1938 version.
I don't know why you should think this coach was lined after 1928. Only those coaches that were to be used in express passenger service were slated to be lined. Not suburban stock nor stock used on secondary services. I have not seen any evidence that any of the engineer's saloons were lined, and even the director's saloon was finished unlined.
Since there is no documentary evidence and only a couple of high contrast photos, which are open to interpretation, I think it is up to you to explain why, what was essentially an engineer's tool that wasn't really expected to be seen by the public, should have been given a full express passenger livery.
Bunkerbarge wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:15 pm
..... frosting on toilet windows or whether.......
Meanwhile I shall enjoy my own model and continue to get pleasure from watching it taking data readings from my locomotives.
I use white tissue paper on the inside of toilet windows, spot glued with water based glue.
Sometimes I sandwich it with another piece of clear acetate.
It so looks the best.
And is easily removed when needed.
Hi Folks Clearly there are those here and on other forums who can never be persuaded the Dyno Car was lined by the evidence that has been presented, I had no axe to grind even though, since the mid 1960s when I first saw it at Clapham, it has always been unlined. Having done my own research as well as seen that shown by others, I am now convinced it was lined. There are other factors in favour of it having been lined which have not even been mentioned so far. Personally the idea that a coach that has travelled faster than any other LNER coach apart from a select group of 6, which is gangwayed and carried people other than LNER employees rates in my book as an "Express passenger coach"
…..Bill Bedford mentions the Engineers Saloon but Harris illustrates No 900580 which is most definitely lined AND it was built in 1936. If he believes that the lining is highlights on the edges of beading can he explain how that was achieved on a STEEL PANELLED COACH WITH NO BEADING !! I rest my case, but not necessarily permanently.
Bunkerbarge wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:15 pm
..... frosting on toilet windows or whether.......
Meanwhile I shall enjoy my own model and continue to get pleasure from watching it taking data readings from my locomotives.
I use white tissue paper on the inside of toilet windows, spot glued with water based glue.
Sometimes I sandwich it with another piece of clear acetate.
It so looks the best.
And is easily removed when needed.
Kimball
Many thanks for the tip. I'm sure one day i will feel brave enough to open it up and I will experiment with some options including your suggestion.
While I don't know if the Dyno Car was lined or not, the LNER did paint a representation of the beading onto it's pre-Thompson steel paneled coaches. This included highlighting and shading to give the impression of a three dimensional shape. The Engineers Saloon may be lined but it is very faint if it is and it may just be a representation of the beading (note that no vertical lining can be seen above the waistline). Also, as the photograph is dated 1945 and the caption states that the coach is ex-works, it is not necessarily helpful in proving if the Dyno Car was or was not lined post 1928.
Hi Folks It would seem rather pointless to paint imitation mouldings without actually adding the lining. Neither of Harris' volumes on LNER coaching stock nor Campling Vol 1 make any mention of this and in Campling there are much better pictures of steel stock with imitation panelling and lining. Page 42 shows a steel panelled composite which looks very much like the photo of the Inspection saloon below the waist but is clearly fully lined as the arrow heads can be seen even if you need a magnifying glass. I am not entirely convinced that vertical lining is omitted on the Inspection saloon but like many pictures in Harris the reproduction is small and poor as a result. The coach shown in Campling was built only a year before the saloon which may well indicate the current methods.
adrianbs wrote: ↑Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:55 pm
There are other factors in favour of it having been lined which have not even been mentioned so far. Personally the idea that a coach that has travelled faster than any other LNER coach apart from a select group of 6, which is gangwayed and carried people other than LNER employees rates in my book as an "Express passenger coach"
Which would mean that it was given that livery at least five years before anyone thought of using it in a high-speed brake trial, and when it spent most of its time trundling around with the counterpressure loco.
Hi Folks As far as is known the coach was given fully lined LNER livery about 14 years before the record run. The pictures of it showing it thus, but still with NER bogies must have been taken before 1928, when the Gresley bogies were fitted. It has clearly received a repaint as the ends appear no longer lined as they had been when it was built and the lettering has been altered. The photo of it in "North Eastern Record Vol 2" show the ends lined as well as the dark roof ( Oxide )and black vents but probably with the Clerestory roof in white. This is likely to have been the only period when any part of the roof was white or light grey. ….I assume all the other important livery errors have been accepted as such and they are even more noticeable than the lack of lining. Unless someone can produce the record card for the coach and it shows details conflicting with what the photographs seem to show very clearly, I am sure it was lined till 1948. Of course the coach received LNER lined livery if it was repainted before 1928 as the pictures in LNER Reflections clearly show, this would have been the standard livery at that time for any absorbed coach, Even the lowly GER 4 wheelers that have been mentioned earlier were lined if they had reached a major overhaul date and the livery needed changing. There is of course the intriguing possibility that the coach remained NER Crimson lake right through till 1948 so, unless this is true, it had to have been repainted at some point between '23 and '48. The fact that LNER livery policy changed for certain types at various dates does not mean coaches received that livery for years after, indeed may have lasted well beyond the due repaint date if they were due for withdrawal fairly soon. The LNER suffered from financial constraints most of it's existence and major repaints were very expensive and time consuming. Much LNER non gangwayed suburban stock was built in the 1920s and could well have remained lined up to almost WW2, indeed some probably lasted beyond that if the paintwork had not become life expired, but the lining would have been very difficult to detect.
I think some people are forgetting that the LNER simplified its liveries during the second world war. Since the dynamometer car was indeed used during WW2, if it had at any time gone into the works for a repaint, it is incredibly unlikely to have come out fully lined.
The emergency board for the LNER during WW2 (made up of a number of different directors, plus the CME, CEE and others) authorised the changes in liveries for the day. Hence why locomotives became black painted mostly with simplified numbering/lettering and why coaches taken into works would not necessarily get full LNER lining out and gold leaf.
The new Thompson coaches being produced by the LNER were scumbled and even that was subject to some austerity in terms of its overall look. No lining whatsoever on the Thompsons.
Post-war things were better but the dynamics of the railway had changed. Particularly with nationalisation looming.
I cannot say for definite that the dynamometer car was lined fully during WW2 but would surmise that it seems unlikely to have been.
Unless someone actually produces concrete evidence to the contrary, it's all hearsay, speculation and a "did they didn't they" scenario. So you can hardly throw at Rails that they're wrong, if the evidence isn't 100% conclusive anyway.
Hi Folks The photos of the coach during the exchange trials are good enough to convince me it was lined, had a dark roof (probably reddish brown), did not have a white speed wheel, or flat faced, shiny plated wheels nor a see through toilet window. Even if it was not lined, any manufacturer who gets 5 out of 6 of those points clearly wrong makes me very suspicious of the 6th being right. Nor do I like the black on brown teak effect although I would concede that if the coach were very weathered that might be acceptable. Having seen genuine original Imitation teak LNER finish, black played no part in the graining effect, even official records confirm the last point.
I don't know anyone who is forgetting all imitation lining and beading was officially discontinued in 1941 FOR NEW BUILDS AND REPAINTS but that certainly does not mean coaches could not be seen with this finish until years later if they were not in need of a repaint. If the Museum exhibit has not been repainted for 54 years, and looks as good as it does, then a coach which spent much of it's service life under similar storage conditions would have lasted many times longer without a repaint than the average of up to 10 years of a vehicle in daily use. 24 years between full repaints with a number of revarnishings in between seems perfectly reasonable for the Dynamometer car and if not repainted until 1928 the period is only 20 years.
I can certainly throw at Rails at least 5 important errors which, on a £125 coach, is unacceptable for me. Incorrect lining and graining would definitely be the last straw on top of the other faults.
adrianbs wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:56 pm
Hi Folks The photos of the coach during the exchange trials are good enough to convince me it was lined, had a dark roof (probably reddish brown), did not have a white speed wheel, or flat faced, shiny plated wheels nor a see through toilet window. Even if it was not lined, any manufacturer who gets 5 out of 6 of those points clearly wrong makes me very suspicious of the 6th being right. Nor do I like the black on brown teak effect although I would concede that if the coach were very weathered that might be acceptable. Having seen genuine original Imitation teak LNER finish, black played no part in the graining effect, even official records confirm the last point.
I don't know anyone who is forgetting all imitation lining and beading was officially discontinued in 1941 FOR NEW BUILDS AND REPAINTS but that certainly does not mean coaches could not be seen with this finish until years later if they were not in need of a repaint. If the Museum exhibit has not been repainted for 54 years, and looks as good as it does, then a coach which spent much of it's service life under similar storage conditions would have lasted many times longer without a repaint than the average of up to 10 years of a vehicle in daily use. 24 years between full repaints with a number of revarnishings in between seems perfectly reasonable for the Dynamometer car and if not repainted until 1928 the period is only 20 years.
I can certainly throw at Rails at least 5 important errors which, on a £125 coach, is unacceptable for me. Incorrect lining and graining would definitely be the last straw on top of the other faults.
Where are the official records for Teak graining specification ? Works are well known for doing variation on painting specs why should this be any different on this coach and rigidly obeyed by the works painter.
Where does the 1928 repaint date originate ? It had Duckets added prior to 1938 run perhaps a repaint at that time, whenever that was.
Silver wheels , no different from Hornby issues similar coaches, two minute job to repaint.
Red Roof ? why would they paint the roof red? Grey or Black /dirt much more likely
White measuring wheel , it looks pretty its called selling !! , it also follows its current condition. This has already been covered as has the toilet window in earlier posts.
The Dyno Car is a obvious pet coach , and looked after well.
At the end of these continuing similar posts Adrian, there is a simple answer don't buy one and move on.
Last edited by mick b on Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hi Folks Anyone who wishes to know where the information is to be found should take the trouble to do the research as I have. I have already mentioned sources and those who wish to contradict my opinion and that of others who have spent years studying LNER coaches should provide their sources and photos. The internet, if properly used, provides a wealth of information directly and even more if leads are followed up.
…. I agree the roof was not red and I did not say it was, so perhaps reading my comments properly would help. Don't forget to go back to NER days either with research. Incidentally just painting the wheels does not correct the profile of the face which Hornby have got correct even to the extent of having two small holes in it and the Hornby coaches only cost about one third that of the Dyno car. Teak does have black mould appear after many years neglect but the exterior finish of the Dynamometer car is NOT teak.
…..I shall NOT be buying one even if I had a very great need for it but fortunately I cannot justify it in 4mm scale. Those who quite happily do buy inaccurate models only persuade manufacturers that not bothering to get things right is a perfectly viable way of continuing and they will probably take even less trouble next time, something which is happening more and more frequently.
