If you have read my review of the Diag U12 from the same stable in the May 2017 (Vol20 No3) issue of the Gazette, you’ll know that I had started work on the companion coach, the T36, but put it to one side when it became apparent that the roof profile was wrong, a single arc version being included when it should have been 3-arc.

The replacement ends with the correct profile have now been supplied by the maker, so I have been able to complete the build. Many of the comments I made about building the basic shell of the U12 apply equally to this kit so I need not repeat them here. Sadly the new ends are not much of an improvement on the old ones. The error concerning the end steps persists – the inverted one is on the right when it should be on the left. Replacement end steps with chequer-plate patterns from Mallard/Blacksmith were fitted, and the error corrected insofar as was possible. The whole end is 3mm too tall overall, and the two-section folderunder will not double-up though 180 degrees as the outer element is too long. There are no etched pads in the top corners of the plain end for the alarm apparatus, and both ends still lack horizontal beading at waist level. The simplest cure for the height issue was to remove and discard the whole of the fold-under, and also to cut off the beading at solebar level so that the roof profile matches the height of the sides. Waist beading was added using Microstrip.

Ignore the incorrect photo in the instructions and fit the early, smaller pattern lamp irons; both types are on the etch. It’s unlikely that the coaches were ever retro-fitted with the later type.

I’ve built many Dragon Models kits over the years and have always found them to be accurate and a pleasure to build, but in all honesty this kit is not their finest hour, and it was a struggle to get a finished model which conforms to prototype as there are many errors and omissions. The most glaring fault is that the luggage doors have been etched solid, whereas on the prototype they were glazed, as it very obvious from the ex-works T36 photo in J H Russell’s GW Coaches Volume 1 (unindexed – but you’ll find it at fig. 57). The luggage doors are solid but the upper panels should have droplights. Drastic modification with a slitting disc is needed.

I had a very anxious time with a slitting disc removing the unwanted brass from the upper door panels, then filing back the rough edges. The droplights supplied are too small to fit their apertures, so I used Mallard/Blacksmith replacements from my spares box, allowing an extra two for the luggage doors. When drilling out the dimples for the door bumps and commode handles, ignore the two below the outermost quarterlights when the compartments are to the right: there were horizontal grab-handles only at the luggage end.

The cast door vents supplied are the 12in type but 9in ones are needed. It was easier to use correctly sized replacements from Slater’s than to cut down the castings.

My next major concern is with the solebars, which are wrong or deficient in almost every respect. There are dimples for pressing out bolts at the centre of both solebars, although you only need them on the side with the V-hanger and vacuum cylinder. But dimples are lacking for the bolt heads which on the real thing attached the W-irons to the rear of the solebar, and the gastank mounts likewise. I swithered for a while and I considered punching them out by hand but eventually decided not to for fear of introducing too much distortion.

The holes for the outer running board brackets are also wrong - they should be much nearer the headstocks. There should also be a lip at the lower edge of the solebar, but I did not attempt to add one as it is largely hidden by the upper running board. The castings for the springs and associated J-hangers are the wrong shape. On GWR coaches of this era, the J-hangers were attached to square plates mounted on the front face of the solebars, not the underside.

I used Roxey Mouldings spares for the J-hangers, and a set of combined white-metal springs and axleboxes from an un-remembered source, so that at the end with suspension the springs are free to move up and down by about 2mm. My kit was missing one axlebox as well.

There should be a hanger at the centre point of each solebar for a horizontal tie bar between the W-irons but this is not provided.

On to the underframe. The photo in the instructions is incorrect inasmuch as the gas cylinder is visible but it should be on the far side. The vacuum cylinder is on the near side when the luggage end is to the right. I replaced the wrongly shaped vacuum cylinder with a proper Dean cylinder from Slater’s, and re-drilled the mounting hole for the vacuum cylinder so it sits to the left of the V when viewed from the side. I also found new and sturdier brass V-hangers to replace the skimpy ones on the etch. You will need to cut a rebate in the fold-under on one side to make room for the outer V-hanger, and the whole sub-assembly of vacuum cylinder/ V’s/gas cylinder needs inserting from inside the coach body, not from underneath, or it will sit too close to the track.

I added three gas valves from Slater’s lost-wax castings, one on the tank and one beneath each solebar. Two gas dials were shaped from scrap plastic sprue and added to the face of the solebars.

The brake hangers on the W-iron sub-assembles need cropping off, as there are alternative hangers integral with the brake shoes. The W-iron assembly which is intended to be fixed needs its mounting slot shortening slightly or there will be unwanted fore and aft movement. I cropped the four tabs on the W-iron unit that was to rock. The brake yokes and the brake safety loops on the etch are very thin and spindly so I sourced alterative parts from old IKB spares.

The final major criticism concerns the running boards, which are much too narrow so I used scrap brass strip to scratch-build replacements. The lostwax hangers have no brackets for the upper running boards so you will need to solder them directly to the lower of the two solebar bracket bolts. Please note that in my photo the almost finished coach still lacks the tiebars and suspension brackets between the W-irons, interior partitions and seats and, obviously, a roof.

The single arc, and somewhat banana-shaped, roof supplied was in a heavy gauge brass and thus difficult to re-roll to a 3-arc profile so I made a replacement from tinplate. I also replaced the gas lamp tops with IKB castings, rather than wait for a replacement part to be sent. The kit only had three in the box and four are required.

The end result is, I hope, presentable, but only after significant modification. I would hesitate to recommend it to a beginner, or to anyone without a lot of patience and access to a big bin of replacement bits. Above all, work from the Russell photo: if you just follow the photos in the instructions and build only what is provided you will end up with a model of a coach that never existed.

I appreciate that etched brass kits for coaches of from the Victorian/Edwardian era are in a niche market, and that a major re-drafting of the artwork for this kit is probably not economically feasible, but that is really what is needed. The almost completed carriage

The kit retails at £72 and as well as the modifications outlined above, it needs wheels, bearings, glazing, seating and couplings to complete.

A copy of this article was sent to Dragon Models. Chris Basten, Dragon Models former owner and designer of this kit makes the following points:

When I read the draft of this article, I had to check twice, once to see if it was of a model from the same family as the U12 in the May 2017 Gazette and once to see if it was the same author. I have a lot of respect for Chris and the way he builds and reviews kits, both identifying the good points and bad in an even handed manner. However in this case I strongly feel that he has both misrepresented the kit, and been very inconsistent with his description of this build, compared with the U12. This is a great shame, as it could mean that further reviews must be treated with care. In fairness to Chris, I detail out some of the areas where he is either misleading the reader, inconsistent in his treatment of this kit, or just plain wrong

“A single arc version (roof) being included when it should have been 3-arc.” As Chris well knows, but has not pointed out, the kit was originally designed as a single arc carriage, based on the Swindon drawing. Later information came to light showing a 3 arc roof was appropriate. However the kit that Chris received was to the original specification, with a preformed single arc roof. We revised the ends and all kits now have the new profile ends and correct roof. I am not sure why he says that the incorrect roof was supplied….it was right at the time.
“The whole end is 3mm too tall overall, and the two section folder-under will not double up though 180 degrees as the outer element is too long.” No, it is exactly the same as the original, as supplied in the U12, but obviously fine in that model, the sides are the same height after all.
“ There are no etched pads in the top corners of the plain end for the alarm apparatus, and both ends still lack horizontal beading at waist level.” Not on either kit as castings are supplied with instructions on where to locate, but again, perfectly satisfactory on the U12 review. Equally, horizontal beading is not included, (our drawing does not show it, and photos of the ends of T36s are like hen’s teeth) but apparently fine on the U12.
“Ignore the incorrect photo in the instructions and fit the early, smaller pattern lamp irons; both types are on the etch. It’s unlikely that the coaches were ever retro fitted with the later type.” Yes they were!
“The most glaring fault is that the luggage doors have been etched solid, whereas on the prototype they were glazed.” Our Swindon reference clearly shows that the luggage doors are definitely solid, but it is entirely possible that the glazing was a later modification. To therefore call it a fault is misleading.
“The droplights supplied are too small to fit their apertures” As per the U12 review, they are made just right, and are definitely not undersize. It may be easier to make them larger, but this leads to complications in glazing. Again, not a fault and misleading.
“The cast door vents supplied are the 12in type but 9in ones are needed. It was easier to use correctly sized replacements from Slater’s than to cut down the castings.” It is so simple to cut them down as explained in the instructions. Perhaps a commission builder wants everything just so, but not practicable if price is kept as low as possible. Once again, this is inconsistent with the U12 review.
“My next major concern is with the solebars, which are wrong or deficient in almost every respect.” But these are the same as the U12, and give optional locations for the rivets/bolt heads, which apparently is fine on that model.
“The castings for the springs and associated J-hangers are the wrong shape” Completely disagree. Additionally they are the same type as the U12, but seemingly fine on that model…
“There should also be a lip at the lower edge of the solebar” These are wooden framed vehicles and no lip is present, different to the steel frames on later vehicles.
“the whole sub-assembly of vacuum cylinder/ V’s/gas cylinder needs inserting from inside the coach body, not from underneath” I must confess to having absolutely no idea how Chris has managed this, or why, but if it improves his build, then I would be grateful to learn more.
“The final major criticism concerns the running boards, which are much too narrow so I used scrap brass strip to scratch-build replacements.” No they are correct, when the upstand at the rear of the footboard is soldered into place. Again, correct according to the review on the U12, but as the design has not changed, one has to ask why they are apparently wrong now.

I am looking at the article again, and could well go on, but I think that as the whole series of GW 4 wheel coach kits is basically the same design, apart from the obvious differences between Diagrams, it is more than strange that one kit is reviewed with a positive feel, but a very, very similar kit has such negative comment. I can only encourage potential purchasers to come to the Dragon stand and see for themselves.

Having read the article and Chris Basten’s comments the new owners of Dragon Models, Julian and Susie Wynn, added the following:
We have read and noted both the article and Chris Basten's response, however we feel that, as the article was written before we took ownership of Dragon Models on 1st April 2017, it would not be appropriate for us to add to the response already given by Chris. We would, however, like to say that we welcome constructive and objective reviews and, as some of our customers may already be aware, we welcome dialogue on their experience of our range of products.

In response to Chris Basten’s comments, Chris Gwilliam replied:

I have a certain sympathy with Chris Basten’s comment that both my review and this article are. inconsistent; I admit that I was somewhat tougher on the T36 than on the U12. The U12 had a number of errors and omissions, but most of them were relatively minor and overall they did not prevent me from enjoying the build.
The T36 however has a lot of those errors plus some major faults which gradually turned what should have been a pleasure into a chore, and finally to exasperation, so I suppose I was less disposed to be forgiving about them. Now that I’m retired from professional building, I assemble kits for my own enjoyment and I really did not enjoy this one. I built over a hundred GWR coaches in my career, so I hope he will allow that I know what I’m talking about.
I refer him in particular to fig. 57 in J H Russell’s Great Western Coaches Part 1. This is of a T36, no. 950, an ex-works brand new example of 1901 to the only Lot, no. 978. There are times when there is a discrepancy between what was shown on Swindon drawings and what was actually built, and this is one of them. The photo conclusively shows that the luggage doors were glazed from new, not solid as supplied in the kit. It is this major fault which prevents me recommending this kit unless the builder is really confident in his/her skills at cutting consistent holes in the brass sheet.
Working round the photo I can see that the upstands to the lower running boards are taller than those supplied in the kit, the gas tank is on the nearside with the van to the left, not as shown in the kit instructions. The lamp irons are of the early pattern, and in a search through over 40 photos of Dean 4-wheelers in end-of-life condition in workmen's trains, I only found two that were retrofitted with the later type (neither of them T36s), so my advice that use of the later pattern was ‘unlikely’ still stands. I was merely trying to help potential builders construct a plausible rather than an implausible model. I reiterate that the J-hangers supplied do not resemble those on the real thing. The prototype's hangers were bolted to plates on the outer surface of the solebar, and had a crank in them to clear the lower lip of the solebar, which is not modelled.
Chris Basten is wrong about wooden solebars. Dean coaches changed from wood to steel under-frames before the construction date of this Lot. A look at the V13 sixwheel full brake on the same double page as the photo of the T36 you will show the difference; the V13 has wooden headstocks (and therefore wooden solebars as well), and the T36 has steel headstocks with a turn-under, which is not provided on the etch. Chris Basten says the solebars on the U12 and T36 were identical, but again he is wrong, as the U12 dates from 23 years earlier, and therefore almost certainly did have wooden solebars; it is also shorter than the T36.
The step brackets on the T36 are much nearer the ends of the coach than the positions provided on the etch, which renders the upper running board useless as the clearance slots are in the wrong place. The photo of the finished kit in the instructions lacks a vertical rod to support the tiebar between the axleboxes, and also lacks the tie-bar itself.
Another omission, which I failed to mention in the article, is a casting for a long commode handle on the guard’s door, on one side only, which is visible in the works photo. I used 0.9 brass wire.
Slaters can supply a suitable lost-wax part, and also correct castings for J-hangers and tie-bar support brackets. Indeed, unless you are desperate to have a T36, or have an inbuilt dislike of injection moulded plastic, you might want to consider a Slaters T34 instead. The droplights supplied on the T36 etch are very skimpy, which precludes modelling any of them in an open position, as the framing is too narrow. Russell’s fig. 72 of a T47 with an open window illustrates my point. I did not find I encountered any difficulties with glazing, as Chris Basten implies, when I used the wider Mallard/Blacksmith replacements.
I have to repeat that I found the revised 3-arc ends too tall to fit the sides, and I needed to make significant alterations, so I wonder if the designer has ever tried to build the revised version of the kit.
If he had checked the Lot lists in Michael Harris’s standard work on GWR coaches he would have seen that the coach is shown as having a ‘3-centre’ roof, and the error of supplying a single arc roof with no waist beading would not have happened in the first place. I also stand by all my other comments.