CME and Bottlewasher Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Thanks for the info PCM. Must try and get down to Swanage for their diesel gala and take some pictures of the tank. I don't suppose your friend knows the size of the buffers on these 33/1? As was mentioned earlier they are larger than standard 33's. I think they are the same size as 47's Hi Brian, I though that the 33/1 had larger buffers fitted - so as to accomadate the modifications and the 'vestibule rubbing plates' etc. your photo would indicate that too......I had a quick look and it would appear that in most photos of the 33/1's - that I have - when compared to e.g. the 33/0's, that the buffers are indeed larger and look to be akin to those of the 47's. CME Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Hal Nail Posted February 19, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 19, 2011 I don't suppose your friend knows the size of the buffers on these 33/1? As was mentioned earlier they are larger than standard 33's. I think they are the same size as 47's Brian, Check out your own photo of 73006 and 33039 on your website. The 73's buffers are larger than the adjacent standard 33/0 - so were the 73 style buffers which were already working on a loco with buffing plate, then fitted to 33/1s on conversion perhaps? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.C.M Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Hi all, Here is a pic of 33111 on the same day taken from the other side. Heljan have done both types of tank on there 4mm model so it's possible Heljan will do it in 7mm eventually. I have also added a pic of 33111 on the Belle back in the 80s showing it had the unmoded tanks back then. I would guess the tanks would have got swapped about during overhaul, a bit like the bogies with the different steps as some loco's have both types. I hadn't noticed the pushers having larger buffers but I guess it is possable as they were a different type of buffer, like the class 73s they had a pin that could be removed so the buffer could be retracted for when the loco was hauling stock, the buffers on 33111 below show the buffers retracted. Cheers Peter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CME and Bottlewasher Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Hi all, Here is a pic of 33111 on the same day taken from the other side. Heljan have done both types of tank on there 4mm model so it's possible Heljan will do it in 7mm eventually. I have also added a pic of 33111 on the Belle back in the 80s showing it had the unmoded tanks back then. I would guess the tanks would have got swapped about during overhaul, a bit like the bogies with the different steps as some loco's have both types. I hadn't noticed the pushers having larger buffers but I guess it is possable as they were a different type of buffer, like the class 73s they had a pin that could be removed so the buffer could be retracted for when the loco was hauling stock, the buffers on 33111 below show the buffers retracted. Cheers Peter. Hi PCM, Thanks so much for Posting this....so we can now safely presume/assume that the 'earlier' 33's had both tanks/sides with the cut-outs/cutaways........which now makes my life more challenging The rectangular tanks were fitted in the mid 1980's to most 33's - I have yet to find out as to why (perhaps larger capacity/range?). Would you happen to have - by any chance - a close up photo(s) of the pipework etc. around the cut-out and between the battery box and tank/cut-out (for both sides )? Many thanks, apologies Brian for Hijacking your Thread ATB, CME Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.C.M Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Hi PCM, Thanks so much for Posting this....so we can now safely presume/assume that the 'earlier' 33's had both tanks/sides with the cut-outs/cutaways........which now makes my life more challenging The rectangular tanks were fitted in the mid 1980's to most 33's - I have yet to find out as to why (perhaps larger capacity/range?). Would you happen to have - by any chance - a close up photo(s) of the pipework etc. around the cut-out and between the battery box and tank/cut-out (for both sides )? Many thanks, apologies Brian for Hijacking your Thread ATB, CME Hi CME, Sorry no close up pics, I will ask my brother (YVM) to try and get some next time he is down Swanage way. Cheers Peter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian daniels Posted February 22, 2011 Author Share Posted February 22, 2011 Here are a couple of blow ups from my website that I worked from. I can't fathom out why the tanks were changed so late in their life, surely not for the sake of adding another couple of gallons of diesel? I can't fathom out the use of larger buffer heads on the 33/1's either as the only time you might need larger bufferheads is when propelling at 85mph. But the buffers are pushed in and play no part in propelling the TC units etc. The only thing I can come up with is that retractable oleo's only come with large heads and that's it, you don't get a choice in the oleo catalogue! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CME and Bottlewasher Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Hi CME, Sorry no close up pics, I will ask my brother (YVM) to try and get some next time he is down Swanage way. Cheers Peter. Hi Peter That's really very kind of you - many thanks in anticipation B) CME Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CME and Bottlewasher Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Here are a couple of blow ups from my website that I worked from. I can't fathom out why the tanks were changed so late in their life, surely not for the sake of adding another couple of gallons of diesel? I can't fathom out the use of larger buffer heads on the 33/1's either as the only time you might need larger bufferheads is when propelling at 85mph. But the buffers are pushed in and play no part in propelling the TC units etc. The only thing I can come up with is that retractable oleo's only come with large heads and that's it, you don't get a choice in the oleo catalogue! Hi Brian Many thanks too....the next port of call was to have look at you site B) The fuel tank issue is a real bizzare one, that's for sure, puzzling! I like your thinking on the larger buffer issue...that's just the sort of thing that would happen Thanks for you help. Regards, CME Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
m davies Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Regarding the tanks, they do not look like the same tank, the original L shaped one has a smooth edge where the gauge is inset, the solid one has a beaded lip around the gauge hole. I don't know for sure and have no proof, but my gut reaction is that the solid tanks are replacements, not modified originals, possibly due to corrosion or life expended?. The originals also have a radius-ed top edge, the solid ones are a much sharper edge and from photos it looks like the lower chamfer is a different angle between the two types. I've a picture off the net that shows #32, 102, 108 with a solid tank as far back as 1985. Best Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard carr Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Here are a couple of blow ups from my website that I worked from. I can't fathom out why the tanks were changed so late in their life, surely not for the sake of adding another couple of gallons of diesel? I can't fathom out the use of larger buffer heads on the 33/1's either as the only time you might need larger bufferheads is when propelling at 85mph. But the buffers are pushed in and play no part in propelling the TC units etc. The only thing I can come up with is that retractable oleo's only come with large heads and that's it, you don't get a choice in the oleo catalogue! Brian I have just spent half an hour going through modern loco illustrated 184, class 33s and I am far from convinced that 33/1s had larger buffer heads. There is no mention of it in the text and it is not visible from the drawings. The lower photo on page 13 does appear to show a 33/2 with one buffer bigger than the other but that is the only picture that really shows anything unusual but is it just an optical illusion ? Richard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Hal Nail Posted February 25, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 25, 2011 I have just spent half an hour going through modern loco illustrated 184, class 33s and I am far from convinced that 33/1s had larger buffer heads. I've been struggling to find a shot of both together, which ought to clear it up, but if you put "class 33" into google images, there is one on the first page from the Swanage Railway of both types. Utterly inconclusive Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrushVeteran Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I've been struggling to find a shot of both together, which ought to clear it up, but if you put "class 33" into google images, there is one on the first page from the Swanage Railway of both types. Utterly inconclusive Is this any help? Have blown into one of my shots of 33051 & 33116 together at Banbury in October 1996. Sorry its a bit fuzzy but it was a big blow! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_R Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 A couple of shots of 33 103 at Swanage - hope they help! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian daniels Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 Nice one Mr W. That's the first pic showing the "slight" difference in size. Now, do I bother changing the 33/1 models buffers? Probably not I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CME and Bottlewasher Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Regarding the tanks, they do not look like the same tank, the original L shaped one has a smooth edge where the gauge is inset, the solid one has a beaded lip around the gauge hole. I don't know for sure and have no proof, but my gut reaction is that the solid tanks are replacements, not modified originals, possibly due to corrosion or life expended?. The originals also have a radius-ed top edge, the solid ones are a much sharper edge and from photos it looks like the lower chamfer is a different angle between the two types. I've a picture off the net that shows #32, 102, 108 with a solid tank as far back as 1985. Best Michael Hi Michael I am coming to similar conclusions....the gauges etc. look different too. Perhaps corrosion was an issue with the originals....I think that I used the phrase 'modified' as a catch all for replacements and/or modified etc.....yet you are right 'replacement' is probabley a more accurate description. CME Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
m davies Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Hi Michael I am coming to similar conclusions....the gauges etc. look different too. Perhaps corrosion was an issue with the originals....I think that I used the phrase 'modified' as a catch all for replacements and/or modified etc.....yet you are right 'replacement' is probabley a more accurate description. CME Going one step further I've been looking at other BRCW locos, the 26 only has one tank with a similar shape and thats the water tank for the boiler (fuel being an inverted T shape), better yet the 27 has two tanks, one for water and the other for fuel. The class 27 water tank is very similar in shape but they visually look slightly shorter but I cannot be sure, I'm just wondering if the replacement class 33 tanks are old class 27 water tanks or even new tanks from the same pattern. Looking back through some old books, I've found 114 with larger tanks in 1977 and 026 in 1978 so the tanks go back quite a few years. Best Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CME and Bottlewasher Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Going one step further I've been looking at other BRCW locos, the 26 only has one tank with a similar shape and thats the water tank for the boiler (fuel being an inverted T shape), better yet the 27 has two tanks, one for water and the other for fuel. The class 27 water tank is very similar in shape but they visually look slightly shorter but I cannot be sure, I'm just wondering if the replacement class 33 tanks are old class 27 water tanks or even new tanks from the same pattern. Looking back through some old books, I've found 114 with larger tanks in 1977 and 026 in 1978 so the tanks go back quite a few years. Best Michael Hi Michael, That is a possibility....I had noticed similar in model form yet hadnt made a connection with the prototype's... ATB CME Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian daniels Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 A few pages back I was building a JLTRT MkI, well I have finally 99.9% finished it All that needs doing is finding some materiel to do the little bit over the top of the corridor connectors. On the van end I have poked a bit of black felt in there to see what it looks like but I think it's a bit fuzzy. So, one down 9 more to go What held this up was deciding what to do about the white line. In the end I used HMRS pressfix lining. I cut it into about 4 inch lengths and found it easier to do than I thought it would be. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Softvark Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Looks really good Brian I agree about the HMRS lining. For the covers over the corridor connectors I had the same problem. Someone recommended using latex so I sprayed a latex 'examination glove' with nearly black paint then cut out a rectangular strip and lightly glued in place. Works well for me. Julian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium boxbrownie Posted March 1, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 1, 2011 That looks superb Brian, I must get my hands on a JLTRT carriage sometime or at least inspect one close up. For the material I assume the prototype used a rubberized canvas, so why not use a piece of very high weave cotton in black or even silk, will have the same sort of surface pattern and be just as flexible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard carr Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Brian It does look good, in those photos though you can hardly see the white line. What did you use for the handrail at the toilet end, I can't see any parts in the kits I have for this ? Richard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian daniels Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 Hi Richard, I used .7 wire for the handrail/toilet filler pipe. I used a couple of split pins squeezed round it for the supports. Where it goes into the filler casting on the roof i managed to drill out the end of the casting .7 and the wire is a push fit in it so I can disconect it to remove the roof. For the 2 extra gutter strips for the toilet filler I used some Evergreen L shape strip. The corridor connectors on the ends are solid so the use of a cloth materiel for the top covering is not essential as it does not go in and out but it is what's needed to get a bit of texture up there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CME and Bottlewasher Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Hi Brian, Those JLTRT coaches look really great - ever tried any of the MMP Mk1's? I have to make do with these..... ATB, CME Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CME and Bottlewasher Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Hi Brian, Whilst I am here, here's some more of my weathering.... ATVB, CME 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian daniels Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 Hi CME I have not tried an MMP coach just Westdale and JLTRT. I think I will stick with JLTRT and make up a rake of blue and grey. That weathering is just superb, the best rust I have seen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now