HowardGWR

You write that you 'printed' your numbers. Could you explain please how and with what, or is that contained in one of the refs? Much obliged and a very interesting account, thanks.

Could it be that the put-off van was given enough time for unloading / loading at Taunton before resuming its journey on the later train? We should remember that BRUTES (and similar) did not exist then and all stuff was separately manhandled. One of my uncles was a porter at Bristol T.M and worked like a Trojan on this kind of activity. It was big business for the railway.

Mike A good starter pack and well done on your deal. Actually, the Bristolian never ran with the coaches you have, as it started in 1935. Your coaches were by then in main line service, but they used somewhat newer designs for the Bristolian. Also they only used a 60xx for the inaugural publicity shots and thereafter used a 4073 (Castle) although it would not have been too unusual to use a 40xx Star, as the latter type would have been well capable of timing this train. So my advice is perhaps to get some Bachmann GWR coaches and the Hornby Railroad buffet (see eBay and the like), as I am sure the combination will look well. If you research this thread in this section of RMWeb 'New Colletts from Old', there are plenty of tips on this subject and also the manufacturer section of RMWeb on Hornby has a thread on the new Collett coaches and I think there is a post from our colleague Mike Wiltshire ("Coach_bogie"). on the make up of these trains. Good luck with your choices!

Good job Lofty has kept us going, as I am afraid I have not (kept going). A few matters in the private arena have prevented progress. Taking a check on this, I realise I have achieved the main mileposts which motivated me, so that all that remains is the outer image (all?). To recap, I found ways to deal with the railroad Collett shortcomings. 1. I filed down the lumpy side of the roof on each side, using a piece section of the Comet roofing material to continually measure the accuracy of the filing. 2. I increased the tumble home of the body work by cutting a tiny gap into the end strengthener and then glueing that gap, up. 3. I reduced the width of the underframe by sawing it down the middle and glueing the two rough halves onto an accurate plasticard base former. 4. I sawed off the inaccurately positioned step board and glued a new plasticard one about 1mm above the bottom of the now-flat solebar. Now, all I am doing is providing an more accurate interior and then comes the finishing. That's the problem. It will be some time before I get to that paradise, if ever, and early summer holidays beckon. However, I will report eventually, even if the end result is no good! It's only a hobby and if I fail, that will be as interesting, I hope, as any successes.

See my thanks buttons. My eyesight was not up to noticing the cheesehead-type screw slots and I actually do go to Specsavers!

Thanks very much for such prompt replies. I couldn't see how the left side thingy (whatever it is) could be loosened before swinging the hinge open. Your replies don't establish how that that is achieved. A spanner can't get hold of a circular object. Still mystified, sorry, I know I'm thick.

First, see this link and examine the second photo (the others are of course interesting to modellers).. http://www.wightwick-hall-6989.com/id3.html I can't see how this is unhinged. Anyone know? There does not seem to be a way in which one could apply a spanner, for instance.. Also I've often pondered on why the cover had to be domed. The inside thingummy does not seem to protrude, in photos that I've seen.

Very nice Tony (Prometheus), grab rails and all! In answer to your query, the Frogmore etches sold by Dart Castings are very fine. I think one of the short grab handle lengths could possibly be adapted for the guard's grab handle, if first annealed. No, I haven't tried it! . http://www.dartcastings.co.uk/frogmore.php#GWRDetailingParts Incidentally, I was very fortunate to have a demo by a GWSG colleague, Don Kalber, alas no longer with us, who shewed me how to lightly fettle the Frogmore etched grab handles, so that they were round instead of 'square section'. Just a few minutes of work with a fine file and then a polish.

Indeed and a helpful person advised this on an earlier post, when I posed a question. They look great on your photo and I am coming to the conclusion that the SE stuff looks better that way anyway, as the SE 'flush' - just isn't quite flush, IMO. All in the eye of the beholder I suppose and it is a better result on Railroad very-thick stock than the original Railroad plastic glaze unit (again IMO). Update -oh, and I am so envious of your painting job -very nice indeed.

I just thought I'd mention I did my piece on the new Hornby Colletts (took one apart) over on the Hornby manufacturer thread, but as the material is related to our discussions here, I thought I'd mention it, if you are interested. Here's the link. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/99267-collett-bow-ended-standard-57-corridor-stock-coaches-for-2016/page-41&do=findComment&comment=2660032

D95 taken apart. It's not that I wanted to, especially, but having damaged it (fell out of packaging when I finally discovered how to open these clear plastic efforts), I had further reasons to separate it into pieces, so no longer MIB. Admiration phase over. Do notice, from the photo, that I have not taken care to get the pieces the right way around. You will need to, on re-assembly.. The underframe is individual to the D95 third brake (see position of the battery boxes) and you can't see from above which way around I positioned it, for the photo. To take it apart, begin with the bogies, but do be careful to grasp them by the axleboxes and not risk damaging the tie bar or the bar under the axle box. Firmly pull and the bogie comes off, just like the Railroads did, if you are familiar with those. Then, as with Railroad vehicles, the glazing units 4 prongs have to be eased out. These are at the ends whereas the railroads were in the middle. Take it steadily. The underframe floor will be now separate and so will be the compartment floor. See photo. In the photo, I have pictured the OO bogie, left, and one, right, with one P4 axle and one OO wheels fitted, as well as the two types of wheels separate in between, for comparison. The bogie is a bit naughty for my purposes, as the brake blocks have been positioned for OO, although they might be OK for EM gauge. Oddly, in the past, Hornby left the brake blocks at scale distance apart. The P4 wheels fit, just, between the axle boxes but the the brake blocks interfere. I am wondering what to do about the bogies. Clearly, if you are compensating using, e.g., MJT units, you would just use the bogie mouldings cosmetically, Now onto the interior. First, Hornby has chosen the interior colour as cream. Probably a bit light in the gloom, as observed from outside. Notice the reddish blobs. This is where the sprayer has not quite covered the base colour of the unit. I think this is the 'mahogany' that is used for the exterior window edges. If you think about it, this might have been a sensible move for production, if so. Just guessing here. The little dark marks are for the holes where the exterior roof and end fittings were glued in. You can see straightaway why the end lamp brackets fall off so readily, as they were not pushed right through,. I hope Hornby make these available as spares. The glazing units are separated per side, whereas in the Railroad version it is one overall unit that forms a strength piece. The greatly improved glazing is due to the much thinner sides compared with the Railroad. Remember that none of the three types (C54, D95, or E127) had flush glazing, except the last four C54s numbered 5177 to 5180, in 1929. Remember also that none of these types had circular buffers, except possibly those last four, above. They all had oval buffers, originally, so the Hornby buffers are incorrect for the early thirties livery, which they produced. . One other thing on the new Hornby model errors. The guard's compartment is incorrect, according to info supplied to me, on good authority, by the GWSG. The left hand window in the corridor partition in the photo above, should be solid. When Hornby took measurements of the D95, there were only two extant and they are both hulks, essentially, hopefully to be restored soon. Hornby would not have known what was the original.layout, I suspect, but the drawing makes it clear. I suspect there will be more definitive articles published, as time goes on, but this is a start and I hope is of interest..

I wonder if you have looked at the differences between the Hornby Maunsells and the Ironclads. If you have some ideas, I would love to hear what you think, on a separate thread (if there is one available). Hopefully not too OT, as these coaches, both sorts, ran frequently on the GWR in north south east west services, during the thirties and in BR days too.. Would it be possible to 'retro-fit' Hornby Maunsells to Ironclads do you think, and how much work involved ?

Please note my addended post above. I think I understood a joke was made when it wasn't. Anyway, I hope my suggestion is also interesting. I save all the plastic and other throwaway stuff in the hope that it could be used but to date all I seem to have is a pile of tins and biros, etc. :-)

I probably should have clicked 'informative' as well Chris. One can only tick one choice. I have quite a collection of flexible packaging candidate items. Collar inserts of new shirts for instance. It's how 'not-scratched' they are that is most important, I think.

Shawplan Lazerglase I don't know this supplier and I'm not getting on very well with the website. I'm looking for illustrations. It seems to me that if one is dissatisfied with RTR glazing, this has more to do with the thickness of the plastic body than anything else. In other words, if your prototype was not 'flush glazed' what you really would like to do is file down the inside of the RTR coach until placing the window material behind it produces the right pre-flushglaze effect . I see why SE Flushglaze went the way they did, but it leaves a kind of bulbous effect, regardless of whether you set them back or press them in fully. In other words, if the thickness of the plastic was less, then the standard RTR method would be OK. The new Hornby Colletts are fine in this respect, IMO..

D95 interior I had planned to just get on with the pretty bits until the completed model could be reported. However there are interesting new discoveries along the way, so here's an interim report. I used a mix of the paints I had available (GWR Brown and Cream) to produce a light brown for the walls. I used the Bill Bedford download for the third class furnishings. I added plasticard walls for the toilet at the end. I went round and touched up and mended after this photo appeared on my screen! Very crude and cruel exposure in that sunlight. Here's what it looks like in the gloom. I may grey out the compartment photos, as they were never colour. Incidentally, Bills download is no good for the first class of this era, as these were dark brown with thin gold beading. I may just paint the first in the E127, GWR brown, perhaps just first sticking in two plasticard seat rests on each bank. Now I considered the guards compartment and van space. Hornby Railroad 'modelled' this as a first class compartment (!) but I have consulted colleagues on GWSG list and I now know that although the width is OK, it should not have a corridor compartment side but the left hand side of the corridor door, as the guard sees it when seated, should be solid. That is not shewn on the Russell diagram, but GWR Drawing 81990 Dec 1926 does shew this apparently. The right hand window is a window. I took the new Hornby D95 apart and they have, if my info is correct, got it wrong, too. Otherwise the guards compartment is modelled very nicely. See this photo next. I think the brake standard should be vertical, not as Hornby have fixed it in. . I made some interesting discoveries with the new model taken apart but I think i will report those on the Hornby thread about these models. The bogies are very naughty, the way they are made, for "non-narrow gauge" modellers, ( I know, silly joke, forgive me :-) )..

I looked it up and the 72xx did not have water pick-up gear. The one experiment the GWR did with a tank engine did not end well, IIRC. At the end, probably only the Cardiff to Brighton trains would have used those troughs, usually hauled by a Hall in BR times, but earlier by a 29xx or 40xx. The photographer was standing at the base of the steps from Church Road, Redfield. Lawrence Hill GWR station was not accurately named, IMO, as Redfield would have been more appropriate. The Platform 4 building in the photo would, in earlier times, I think, have been obscured by what was a covered footbridge that crossed all platforms and was really supernumerary, as one could access all platforms from the pavement of Church Road, where the booking office fronted. I don't remember ever using it. As we are on RMWeb, the real draw of that location was, of course, Max Williams model railway shop. Sorry for OT.

Yes, Lawrence Hill. The train will almost certainly turn east (left) at Doctor Days Junction and continue to Salisbury, picking up water at Foxes Wood troughs, west of Keynsham (if they had pickup gear of course, I don't know about that sort of thing).

Hopefully Taz, you've seen the helpful replies, putting me right. I had a look at your blog and I see the offset of the bogies themselves must have been apparent to you, as you fitted the bogies the right way around! I never spotted it but that's me I am afraid. :-( I too have reached a view on these RTR mods, but I am not so disheartened by what has been revealed. Looking at the Comet parts, my view is that one has to do a lot of fettling with these too, so at the end, one has to wonder whether scratch building in some cases might not have been as easy. The underframe parts do shorten the time taken, it;s true, but they do need attention, such as the struts, depending on one's accuracy requirements. It is good that Comet adopted the parts method of sales, as one can pick and choose according to choices. If we consider Lofty1966's very brave and admired cut and shut projects, he has at least the benefit of those 70 foot items, should he choose to use those. Also my described mods are plainly not considered needed by others, so each person has to make a choice about what they consider should be done. I am enjoying my fiddling anyway.

Thanks Pete_S for correcting my misapprehension. I've looked at the Comet lists and see that they do do 70 foot sides for some diagrams (which I thought previously they didn't). The sides codes are W1 - W5 and cover the diagrams C46, H15, D84, D83 and H26-9 respectively. Very useful types. The Bogie pivot placing. Thanks very much for above replies. Looks like I would have to use the Hornby bogies to save re-drilling (but the right way around!!! - I had not noticed the offset, whoops!!!) and will do some maths to satisfy myself I am doing it right. I've altered my posting so future readers are directed to these helpful answers. RMWeb is certainly coming up trumps.

That's interesting. I was planning to ask Lofty1966 what he would do for 70' underframes. Comet don't do them, do they?

Apologies, I meant they measured the C54 at Didcot and of course Didcot doesn't have a D95, as you point out. How wide are are the 'butt strips'? ( -something else I've learned, thanks). So if you have the panels correct length, you can get the rails correct. Thanks also to Coach_bogie, as I had always wondered about that. I think that anyone who wants to model 30s examples has a potential problem, as there is this dearth of photos between works photos and BR era, as Taz points out. Useful though in this case, as one could have either arrangement in, say, 1933, or 1953, without necessarily being incorrect . On a new subject, I have made a recent and unwelcome discovery. I had the altered Railroad underframe and the Comet one side by side on the work bench and noticed that the enlarged bogie pivot holes in the former were closer together than the ones I had drilled in the latter. I had drilled the Comet underframe at the 43' 6" marks, which is correct for the Collett gangwayed 57' standard types. The Hornby railroads, however, are at 41' bogie centres -aargh! The photo is, from top, Comet, middle is railroad unaltered, under is railroad narrowed and redrilled oval hole to circular one. So those holes are 30" too close and thus need to be moved, for accuracy, 5mm each (1' 3"), outwards, which makes an unwelcome overlap with the existing Hornby moulding. If you remember, Taz had shaved off part of these mouldings to make the heights correct, and I gratefully copied this on mine. I was also planning to use the Hornby bogies. They aren't bad and I was planning just to make the bolster spring mouldings 'a bit more like it' - either coil for the first ones or later the more common volute versions. I believe the Railroad people modelled from the first works photos which had coil springs. I don't know why Swindon changed them on the 7' plate bogies to volute. They kept the coil ones on the 9 foot plate bogies.. I am pondering what to do now. Pretend I didn't notice? Update: See replies below for explanation of why the Hornby ones are how they are and the consequences and the note on the offset bogie pivots of their 7 foot bogies that compensate for this, in order to get the wheels in the right place!!

Just had another look at the D95 roof. The new Hornby has differing length handrail lengths, whereas the ones on the Comet page, that you stick on the roof to mark the drilling positions for the handrails, vents and tank filler, are equal length. Not only that, but the cross roof beading positions are different, accordingly, because the handrail inserts occur at the beading edges. Needless perhaps to add that the Railroad beading (nomenclature?) was different too. I wonder which is correct? Hornby measured the one at Didcot IIRC. Pity I already drilled them. Still, good old filler available, if needed. One other thing: I estimate the end footsteps as about 9" wide, perhaps 3" high. Here is a close up of the ones on the E132 at Bewdley. http://www.gw-svr-a.org.uk/images/end_700px.jpg Also shewn is the gangway support bracket. Mine looked a bit wide initially, having put the teeny bits of L shape plasticard on. Worst is, some of mine were too small so they will be replaced, (if 9" is correct). Is it, anyone know?

And the buffers Lofty1966? Did I get it right that you are modelling the shirt button period?

I wondered what was taking you so much time! :-) As we have hardly any end-on close-up photos of the shirt button era, what do you think of oval vs round buffers? This is very impressive progress, congratulations. The 70 footers are so elegant aren't they?