Hornby 2021 - 4 & 6 wheel period coaches

[wainwright1 623]

36 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

I recently purchased two NBR six wheelers for my KESR layout and after inspecting them, decided to purchase a further four wheeled Brake third, which will need to be re-painted to reflect the more basic livery used by the KESR. It arrived yesterday and I am more than pleased with it. Apart from the two plain panels extending into the waistline it is virtually identical to the brake coaches purchased from the LSWR coaches in 1910. I chose the GWR model because the roof furniture most closely resembles that on the ex LSWR coaches :-

       

                              

 

 

 

 

 

I see the resemblance. A little bit of work with a micro scalpel* and some fine Evergreen strip should convert that quite easily, especially if you are going to do a repaint anyway.

Might do one myself to go with the KESR terriers.

All the best

Ray

 

* Micro scalpels are available form Squires.

 

[Butler Henderson 1,933]

Fitted one of the light strips with two of the LEDs obscured with insulation tape, to the baggage brake to see how much was visible;

 

[mozzer models 2,710]

my LSWR coaches arrived to day

IMG_20210220_121913 by brian mosby, on Flickr

[Robin Brasher 2,583]

Looking forward to receiving mine but I don't think the LSWR coaches with lights have arrived in the shops yet.

[RAYTHEROCK 35]

My thanks to The Johnster for his long reply. Meantime I have fitted Kadee 18's into the sockets - much closer and both pull and propel around my layout without buffer locking. Curves are 36" radius. Might still change buffers for normal convex one instead of Stroudley's concave oddities and set them in a little bit more to give a little more clearance just in case.

[BlueLightning 6,222]

22 minutes ago, RAYTHEROCK said:

Stroudley's concave oddities

 

You appear to have misspelt "Hornby", Stroudley had no such thing as concave buffers.

 

Gary

[Londontram 3,761]

For any one that's got one and might know - being metal how receptive do you think the buffers would be to taking solder.

 I was wondering if the concave section could be in filled and then reprofiled with sand paper?

[Pre Grouping fan 1,138]

1 minute ago, Londontram said:

For any one that's got one and might know - being metal how receptive do you think the buffers would be to taking solder.

 I was wondering if the concave section could be in filled and then reprofiled with sand paper?

 

I don't know much about soldering but I would think you would have to heat it up quick to avoid transferring the heat to the buffer guides and melting them. 

 

Don't quote me but they look plated so solder may have trouble bonding. 

[BlueLightning 6,222]

38 minutes ago, Londontram said:

For any one that's got one and might know - being metal how receptive do you think the buffers would be to taking solder.

 I was wondering if the concave section could be in filled and then reprofiled with sand paper?

 

I don't think they would take it well, however I will be cutting mine of and replacing them with Markits sprung buffers, so happy to give it a try once they are off the carriage.

 

Gary

[PhilJ W 87,440]

Or fill them with Milliput and then sand and paint them.

[The Johnster 19,073]

Surely it would be easier to simply replace the buffers altogether.  They look a bit mushroom heady to me anyway.

 

Not sure what the shape of Stroudley's oddities has to do with anything.  I reckon that's his business.  But. leaving his oddities aside for a moment, concave or otherwise, what is it about his 4 wheelers?  Hornby, Hatton's Genesis, and Dapol 0 gauge have all gone for models of them or something fairly close to them.  Nowt wrong with the Brighton of course, or Stroudley, but a bit more variety might be appreciated in some quarters, at least to the extent of a different shape of brake third, one with the ducket away from the end...

[PatB 5,092]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Surely it would be easier to simply replace the buffers altogether.  They look a bit mushroom heady to me anyway.

 

Not sure what the shape of Stroudley's oddities has to do with anything.  I reckon that's his business.  But. leaving his oddities aside for a moment, concave or otherwise, what is it about his 4 wheelers?  Hornby, Hatton's Genesis, and Dapol 0 gauge have all gone for models of them or something fairly close to them.  Nowt wrong with the Brighton of course, or Stroudley, but a bit more variety might be appreciated in some quarters, at least to the extent of a different shape of brake third, one with the ducket away from the end...

Availability of exemplars to measure up? Suitability for perhaps the most widely available r-t-r pre-Grouping loco in the shape of the Terrier, in its various incarnations (and yes, I know the old ex-Dapol model isn't actually pre-Grouping, whatever livery it might carry)?

[The Johnster 19,073]

That at least makes some sense of the situation; hadn't thought of it like that!  But there are other small pregrouping locos avaialable, or have been at various previous times.  Hornby; 2721, J83, J52, Adams Radial, Hattons SECR P, Heljan Beattie, Oxford Adams Radial, Bachmann Midland 1F and 1P Johnsons, and then there are the various Hornby Smokey Joe types, though I suppose the 'SDJR' 4 wheelers in various liveries go with those. 

 

 

[Steamport Southport 11,776]

I quite like the Terrier and now have four with one to come. Two new Hornby, two old Dapol and the Hornby GWR version on order. But a class that is popular because BR sold them off cheap to the early preservationists. The same goes for the P Class.

 

However they pale into insignificance when you consider what else is available RTR.

 

There are about a dozen GWR pre grouping RTR locomotives out there. I don't just mean the Holden 101 0-4-0T and Dean Single. For some reason people forget the GWR was a pre grouping company formed in the 1830s...

 

Dean Goods, City, County, Star, 2721, 28XX, 45XX, 42XX, 43XX, 47XX, 30XX ROD, just off the top of my head.

 

Midland has the 1P, 1F, 3F, 4F, 4P.

 

That's thousands of locomotives. Before anyone points it out I'm not suggesting all those locomotives pulled small carriages. But they would have been seen alongside each other.

 

So why not the more typical GWR 4 wheelers or MR 6 wheelers? Both built in their hundreds, if not thousands. 

 

That's before we consider the other railways such as the LNWR, NER, GNR and GCR. 

 

I can see these filling the gap. But we really need proper coaches as well. 

 

 

Jason

[Steamport Southport 11,776]

As for the buffers. Try Wizard Models. They do coach and wagon buffer heads in a variety of sizes.

 

As an example.

 

https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/wagons/loc416/

 

 

 

Jason

[Mikkel 14,357]

8 hours ago, Londontram said:

For any one that's got one and might know - being metal how receptive do you think the buffers would be to taking solder.

 I was wondering if the concave section could be in filled and then reprofiled with sand paper?

 

Nile has filed the concave buffers with a mini-drill, and also fitted sprung ones - see: 

 

 

[BlueLightning 6,222]

8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Hornby, Hatton's Genesis, and Dapol 0 gauge have all gone for models of them or something fairly close to them.  Nowt wrong with the Brighton of course, or Stroudley, but a bit more variety might be appreciated in some quarters, at least to the extent of a different shape of brake third, one with the ducket away from the end

 

Other than the fact that many railways had duckets at the end, and the Hattons one is nothing like a Brighton one you could be right. The Hattons Ducket is much more like an LCDR or GNR one to name 2 companies, and it could well be more.

 

The Caley, LSWR, and even the GWR, to name another 3, all also had end duckets in a not overly dissimilar manner to Stroudley, and the fact that the end is a separate piece in the Hornby's makes them reasonably easy to modify to closer match the style.

 

Those are just a few examples, there are many more, but I'm not sitting here checking through every single pre-grouping railway to make sure.

 

So just to be clear end ducket ≠ LBSC, does that help with your issue about end duckets?

[Skinnylinny 5,637]

Also, as a thought - there's a good reason for end duckets, and not just visibility through the carriage end!

Brake carriages need a hand brake, and the simplest method of installing one (bearing in mind that the Regulation of Railways Act requiring the use of continuous brakes on passenger stock didn't come in until 1889) is to have one brake shoe per wheel, with both sets of shoes being pulled in the same direction by the rodding, as below: 
This is most easily done with the handbrake at the end of the carriage - if the standard is much further in, you either need to *push* the brake rodding on the right-hand wheel to apply the brakes (big no-no, as pushing narrow rods tends to lead to bending and reduced brake force, plus eventual fatigue) or you need more levers in order to reverse the direction of the pull, and put your right-hand brake shoes on the other side of the wheel, adding cost and more potential points of failure. 

It then makes sense for the guard to need access to the end of the carriage, without parcels/luggage etc getting in the way of applying the brakes. As such, I would expect the guard's compartment to be at the end of the carriage, with the brake standard, and thus the duckets to be in a similar place. 

[Compound2632 28,710]

1 hour ago, Skinnylinny said:

Brake carriages need a hand brake, and the simplest method of installing one (bearing in mind that the Regulation of Railways Act requiring the use of continuous brakes on passenger stock didn't come in until 1889) is to have one brake shoe per wheel, with both sets of shoes being pulled in the same direction by the rodding,

 

The Brighton was an early adopter of the Westinghouse brake. Were Stroudley's block trains of 1872/3 built with it?

Edited February 21 by Compound2632

[Jol Wilkinson 7,243]

2 hours ago, Skinnylinny said:

Also, as a thought - there's a good reason for end duckets, and not just visibility through the carriage end!

Brake carriages need a hand brake, and the simplest method of installing one (bearing in mind that the Regulation of Railways Act requiring the use of continuous brakes on passenger stock didn't come in until 1889) is to have one brake shoe per wheel, with both sets of shoes being pulled in the same direction by the rodding, as below: 
This is most easily done with the handbrake at the end of the carriage - if the standard is much further in, you either need to *push* the brake rodding on the right-hand wheel to apply the brakes (big no-no, as pushing narrow rods tends to lead to bending and reduced brake force, plus eventual fatigue) or you need more levers in order to reverse the direction of the pull, and put your right-hand brake shoes on the other side of the wheel, adding cost and more potential points of failure. 

It then makes sense for the guard to need access to the end of the carriage, without parcels/luggage etc getting in the way of applying the brakes. As such, I would expect the guard's compartment to be at the end of the carriage, with the brake standard, and thus the duckets to be in a similar place. 

 Carriage brakes, unlike wagons, usually operated on both sides of the wheels in a "clasp" arrangement. Brake rodding was  invariably of the "pull" type, simple lever mechanisms providing the required change of direction and compensation in the rodding. The LNWR had a large number of centre brake compartment carriages, both six wheel and bogie types. The handbrake and vacuum brakes were linked and shared the same brake rodding..

[Skinnylinny 5,637]

The first Stroudley block trains were built without continuous brakes, and with the 4-shoe design as shown in my previous post. In fact, the unbraked carriages had Mansell wheels, while the braked ones had the unusual fitting of *nine*-spoked wheels, with the brake shoes being wooden.

Note, also, the single lamp shared between three "compartments", and the lack of full-height partitions, indicating (as well as the close-coupling!) that this is a D34 suburban brake third rather than the D45 mainline brake third (outwardly very similar except for the number of lamps and the provision of buffers at the non-guard end.

[Compound2632 28,710]

Note the rippling of the guard's lookout panelling. That's presumably not a wood panel but sheet metal? Or even canvas?

[Skinnylinny 5,637]

It's sheet metal, a single sheet to form the curved top, the side and the ogee bottom.

[PhilJ W 87,440]

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Note the rippling of the guard's lookout panelling. That's presumably not a wood panel but sheet metal? Or even canvas?

 

2 minutes ago, Skinnylinny said:

It's sheet metal, a single sheet to form the curved top, the side and the ogee bottom.

It looks like a continuation of the roof covering.

[Compound2632 28,710]

6 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

It looks like a continuation of the roof covering.

 

Which is why I thought it might be canvas (over boards). But I think the joint line can be seen quite clearly. @Skinnylinny's response will be based on reference to the drawings, so can be taken as authoritative.