buffalo's workbench

Thanks for all the likes! Has anyone spotted the non-deliberate mistake yet? Remember, this is meant to be one of the earliest pannier conversions from around 1911-12 as running before WW1. I only spotted it today after I'd been fitting the cab and making a few adjustments to get the tanks and boiler to fit at the right height...

 

Nick

I'm wondering whether chopping a section out of the middle of the footplate (rather than trim the edges) might have been a better approach, although at the expense of having to shift splashers out!

 

By recessing the existing tank sides as you did, does this retain about the right shoulder radius? And maybe you've narrowed them a touch too much - the sides of the panniers should be flush with the cab sides.

 

I guess the non-deliberate mistake is the Collett bunker!

I'm wondering whether chopping a section out of the middle of the footplate (rather than trim the edges) might have been a better approach, although at the expense of having to shift splashers out!

That was my first thought, but apart from having to file out the splasher cutouts, it would have left the line of rivets inside the outer frames and roughly in line with where the springs will be. Mind you, I have been tempted to grind off those exaggerated rivets and replace them with Archers transfers.

By recessing the existing tank sides as you did, does this retain about the right shoulder radius? And maybe you've narrowed them a touch too much - the sides of the panniers should be flush with the cab sides.

There is a very slight lip where the sides meet the top and bottom parts, no more than about 0.2mm. A bit of sanding is needed here and that will restore the radius. I'll be replacing the moulded lifting rings and the fillers and vents will need to be moved inwards.

 

The relative widths of the tanks and cab are exaggerated in those photos and look better now the tanks/boiler are sitting properly. Some photos of early examples with the old type open cab suggest that the tanks are the same width as the cab front sheet and the side sheets then project slightly. This is what I've done here, though at a scale 0.8" the side sheets are a little on the thick side. Hopefully it will be less obvious when painted.

I guess the non-deliberate mistake is the Collett bunker!

Yes, a case of not seeing the wood for the trees. I had these parts that needed narrowing, so I narrowed them. Only when I sat back and looked at them later did I realise I'd need to make a new older type bunker.

 

Nick

buffalo, on 01 Apr 2013 - 12:11, said:

That was my first thought, but apart from having to file out the splasher cutouts, it would have left the line of rivets inside the outer frames and roughly in line with where the springs will be. Mind you, I have been tempted to grind off those exaggerated rivets and replace them with Archers transfers.

It's not clear where the footplate line of rivets should be on a Buffalo, since there is no obvious angle plate on the outside of the frame, but that is always in shadow in pictures, so very difficult to tell. I agree having the line of rivets outside the frame is more logical. I think saddle Buffalos probably had flush rivets, and some of the early Pannier conversions might have come within the flush rivet era.

 

I think your current bunker style is a deep '6B', which would make it c 1925.

Yes, I think you may be right about the rivets. I've yet to find a photo of a saddle tank in which they are visible, though most photos are from too low an angle to be sure. On the other hand, they seem to be visible on most panniers.

For the panniers, the photo of 1252 at Plymouth in 1920 in the South Devon book is interesting. This was one of the earliest 1911 conversions but it does show the rivets. It appears to have a shorter chimney than some others.  Also interesting is that, unlike many others, it does not have the prominent rings of rivets around the smokebox door and, just to show that flush sides were not an early concern, its tanks look to be slightly wider than the cab sides.

Yes, it's a 6B bunker or type 91 in my copy of RCTS part 5. 1252 also has the type of bunker that I'll need to make, the simple flared box with added fender, type X1 or X2 on Mikkel's page on gwr.org or 14/15 in RCTS (link added for others' benefit, I'm sure you know about it).

 

Nick