What is it about this kit that attracts the less than competant builder? I, too, am in the process of rescuing a poorly assembled example, though your's looks a bit better than my starting point.

Your smokebox door is a great improvement, the original does not seem to be right for any of the various boiler variations, certainly not those with the boiler top below the top of the tanks. Is it the photo or are the front top edges of the tanks rounded? On the early types the front of the tanks and smokebox was a very distinctive single flat plate giving a sharp edge to the front of the tanks. I gave up with the white metal front and replaced it with a piece of brass sheet cut to shape, though I still have to either track down or make a new smokebox door.

I can't tell from the photos, but do you have the correct bunker for the early pannier conversions? The one in my kit was a mid-to-late twenties type, so I had to make a new one.

Good luck with the chassis. At least with mine, the previous 'builder' hadn't got very far with that...

Nick

I really must object to he "competent builders" claim. I have not taken this on because he doesn't have the skill to do it well, he does, however he lacks the time which is something I have more of at the moment. I think a major portion of the blame must go with the design of the kit. I'm sure it was fine when it was new but it certainly isn't a modern kit. I'm mostly trying to gently tease him as he's been blaming me for various things in all his posts...

Sorry, Gareth, no intention to insult your friend's abilities, you do that quite well without my help. My comments were intended to compare our less than perfect starting points with this kit and offer some, hopefully, constructive comments.

Nick

As kits go, this one was not that filled me with joy - hence my enthusiasm for off-loading it to poor Gareth - which is a shame because I love the GWR's outside framed locos. 

First among the problems was the fact that the drawings were not of the same type of boiler/smoke box as represented in the kit - the drawing showed a raised smokebox coming through the pannier top - just like the later 57xx - only the boiler/tank top was flat in the model.  Second, without the correct drawing the fact that the tank end had the wrong sized smoke box door completely passed me by.  Third, I have found the Alan Gibson sprung hornblocks extremely fiddly and a good way to lose interest in the hobby, so the decision was made to convert it to a flexichas.  Fourth, I found that the tank sides were longer by an appreciable margin than the tank top and bottom - something which did not fill me with confidence and meant a lot of filling.

I could go on, but it would be unfair to do so as of course, this kit is very old in design terms and has had a serious makeover since it was first issued by M & L ( I should confess I passed an original cast version of the GWR 850 to Gareth and he professed to be quite underwhelmed by it - he told me to contact Alan Gibson and get the **** etches like he'd done for his one, but I digress...)  Here in lies the problem, I think - it was a make over, replacing some cast parts with etched versions and I suspect it was not a complete re-design as such. 

Of course, the view from the cheap seats as someone who has never designed a kit is very different from the view from the kit designers position.  Compromises are inevitable (if only in the weight of the kit v the real thing - I don't think we'd be able to lift a tank engine if its weight was reduced at a scale of 1:76!), but while the Alan Gibson revisions are a distinct improvement in individual item quality over the cast parts of the original M & L (with the exception of those dammed sprung hornblocks), I feel more attention was needed during the redesign to the construction of the kit as a whole, for example building in methods to easily facilitate the use of sub-assemblies which would ease painting and lining as well as the general integration of the new etched components with the existing cast parts like the tanks and boiler assembly. 

But, moans apart, its better to have a kit, even one that is not quite perfect, than have to scratchbuild it, and its worth emphasising that this kit - even post Alan Gibson (the original one, not Colin) redesign - is an old kit.  I had this example since the early/mid 1990s if memory serves.... 

That said, I have the saddle tank version sitting in my 'to be built' drawer at home and I think that using a CSB chassis might avoid many of the admittedly self imposed snags with the kit's chassis.  As for the rest, we shall see....

drduncan

...First among the problems was the fact that the drawings were not of the same type of boiler/smoke box as represented in the kit - the drawing showed a raised smokebox coming through the pannier top...

Yes, that's right, the drawing in the kit is a later large boilered type from the 1920s with all of the firebox, boiler and smokebox at a higher pitch and above the top of the tanks. This is despite the instructions saying the kit represents an early small boilered type. The smokebox door is about right for the larger boilers, but not for the kit. There were at least six combinations of boilers and tanks most of which are shown in a series of drawings in Russell vol 1.

Then there's the bunker. The one I found in my kit was only fitted in the later twenties.

...Third, I have found the Alan Gibson sprung hornblocks extremely fiddly and a good way to lose interest in the hobby...

Those things are enough to put anyone off. I have a large collection of unused ones having only ever tried to assemble a couple of them. They are worth keeping for the screws and springs but, otherwise, they are just not worth the effort. These days, I just throw them in a box and use High Level hornblocks.

...Fourth, I found that the tank sides were longer by an appreciable margin than the tank top and bottom - something which did not fill me with confidence and meant a lot of filling...

Yes, much filing, rather than filling, was needed on mine, but I really wouldn't have wanted to attack it without a good supply of drawings and photos.

...Compromises are inevitable (if only in the weight of the kit v the real thing - I don't think we'd be able to lift a tank engine if its weight was reduced at a scale of 1:76!)...

No, it doesn't work like that. Weight (strictly mass) is a volumetric measure so you divide by 76.2 cubed (442450.728) to get the scaled weight. In the case of a fully coaled and watered Buffalo pannier, this works out around 490g.

...That said, I have the saddle tank version sitting in my 'to be built' drawer at home and I think that using a CSB chassis might avoid many of the admittedly self imposed snags with the kit's chassis.  As for the rest, we shall see....

Throw out the hornblocks and replace them with High Level ones. If it is anything like mine, you'll need to do some filing and filling on the front of the tanks, but it should go together more easily than the pannier tank.

Nick