iL Dottore Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Having indulged and bought four of the things (in GWR colours) last year, I finally sat down and took them out the box today and I am quite impressed with the underframe, miles better than what I could achieve. Bearing in mind the various comments made here (re black ends, lamp irons, grey roof. etc.), the 4 wagons are going into my "easy upgrade" pile. hHowever I am a bit stuck. I know that Mickiner found the body to be a simple push fit onto the chassis (I've yet to muster the courage to open one of mine), but no one has mentioned how much space there is behind the buffer beam for working screww link couplings. I'm wondering - given the exquiste and presumably somewhat fragile underframe - whether I'd be better off trying to upgrade the existing hook to take a screw link as opposed to drilling out and adding a new hook. Any thoughts? F Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micklner Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I now have two from memory not a lot of room . Mine have kept the tension locks I have given up on other couplings for anything other than wagons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold gwrrob Posted January 8, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 8, 2012 Bearing in mind the various comments made here (re black ends, lamp irons, grey roof. etc.), the 4 wagons are going into my "easy upgrade" pile. hHowever I am a bit stuck. I know that Mickiner found the body to be a simple push fit onto the chassis (I've yet to muster the courage to open one of mine), but no one has mentioned how much space there is behind the buffer beam for working screww link couplings. I'm wondering - given the exquiste and presumably somewhat fragile underframe - whether I'd be better off trying to upgrade the existing hook to take a screw link as opposed to drilling out and adding a new hook. Any thoughts? F You would need to shorten the spring considerably but they should work when fiited.Remove the nem pocket and the 5mm space is just enough.I will fit them on mine but I also keep the tension locks too for my layout and remove them for photos.Like you say the underframe is first class,shame Hornbys siphon g's not the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Fatadder Posted January 8, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 8, 2012 Chop off the NEM coupling bits, under which is a large square gap behind the headstock with plenty of room for a coupling (and spring behind it should that be your preference) Yes so if you have any siphon g's lurking for the strawberry traffic at Cheddar, change those too. Will have to start hunting for photos of at least one which survived with the earlier logo fingers crossed. Not a massive fan of the shirt button... Will need to stock up on more transfers as well, after finishing the Horsebox I now only have 2 more sets of transfers left (and a Fruit D and Siphon G awaiting paint.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold gwrrob Posted January 8, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 8, 2012 Chop off the NEM coupling bits, under which is a large square gap behind the headstock with plenty of room for a coupling (and spring behind it should that be your preference) Will have to start hunting for photos of at least one which survived with the earlier logo fingers crossed. Not a massive fan of the shirt button... Will need to stock up on more transfers as well, after finishing the Horsebox I now only have 2 more sets of transfers left (and a Fruit D and Siphon G awaiting paint.) Rich.If you don't mind waterslide transfers,Fox do a set of just shirtbutton logos for £3.50 http://www.fox-transfers.co.uk/products.cgi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iL Dottore Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Thanks for the tips, lads. Much appreciated. They seem almost too nice to "grot up", but I hope to have some photos of a weathered example to show soon. F Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 31A Posted January 8, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 8, 2012 I've been thinking of 'grotting up' mine too but haven't got round to it yet, but I was wondering whether it might be a mistake to make it too 'grotty', bearing in mind that they were used for a fairly 'prestigious' type of traffic, and possibly also didn't put in the kind of mileage that other types of NPCCS would have done? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Neal Ball Posted January 8, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) I've been thinking of 'grotting up' mine too but haven't got round to it yet, but I was wondering whether it might be a mistake to make it too 'grotty', bearing in mind that they were used for a fairly 'prestigious' type of traffic, and possibly also didn't put in the kind of mileage that other types of NPCCS would have done? Russell says they would often be seen off the GWR system. So time away from "Home" could possibly be extensive, in which case the mileage might clock up and general track rubbish accumulating etc. Off topic though - I was surprised to see the Bachmann cattle trucks labled as "Not common user" when given as presents at Christmas. Surely these would also have wandered off the system? Meanwhile, I am finishing off a Parkside Dundas N13 Horsebox. Is it just me, or did the Hornby stock sell out very quickly? - Hopefully I will have better luck next time round! Edited January 8, 2012 by Neal Ball Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenway Park Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Hi Bought one of these for my BR Cambrian layout. Can I get away with the Calf version as the Lleyn Peninsula was or still is a cattle area? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dilbert Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I've been thinking of 'grotting up' mine too but haven't got round to it yet, but I was wondering whether it might be a mistake to make it too 'grotty', bearing in mind that they were used for a fairly 'prestigious' type of traffic, and possibly also didn't put in the kind of mileage that other types of NPCCS would have done? I wouldn't grot things up too much - as you state the owners of such animals would want to have been assured that they were well taken care of in transit and that would have implied regular cleaning and maintenance. There are a couple of photos in Judge's GW AEC Railcars of the Lambourne branch where car N°18 was allowed to haul up to six horse boxes. The photos show horseshit all over the platform and yet the overall apearance of the horseboxes is quite clean - no doubt the platform was cleaned up rapidly after departure of one of these services... dilbert 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Neal Ball Posted January 8, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 8, 2012 ....... Judge's GW AEC Railcars of the Lambourne branch where car N°18 was allowed to haul up to six horse boxes........ dilbert Wow! - I didn't realise they were allowed to haul so much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Fatadder Posted January 8, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 8, 2012 If anyone is interested in renumbering or rebranding The logos came off mine without a mark after applying Microsol letting it disk for a couple of minutes and then rubbing off with a cotton bud 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 8, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 8, 2012 Wow! - I didn't realise they were allowed to haul so much. It might well have been allowed to - I wonder how often it actually managed it (or needed to manage it)? (In 1954 - for the first time generally as far as I can establish -an Instruction appeared giving the maximum permitted tail loads for the ex GWR railcars numbered 18 and upwards; the load was 60 tons but to be reduced to 30 tons where gradients were 1 in 60 or steeper - which would therefore include the Lambourn branch. I don't know the weight of a GW horsebox but I bet it was probably a bit more than 5 tons when loaded however No18 did have sanders I believe which might have led to some sort of localised Instruction?) 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Neal Ball Posted January 9, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 9, 2012 It might well have been allowed to - I wonder how often it actually managed it (or needed to manage it)? (In 1954 - for the first time generally as far as I can establish -an Instruction appeared giving the maximum permitted tail loads for the ex GWR railcars numbered 18 and upwards; the load was 60 tons but to be reduced to 30 tons where gradients were 1 in 60 or steeper - which would therefore include the Lambourn branch. I don't know the weight of a GW horsebox but I bet it was probably a bit more than 5 tons when loaded however No18 did have sanders I believe which might have led to some sort of localised Instruction?) Looking at Russell Vol 2 the Tare is shown as either 10 or 12 ton. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 The photos in Judge are of a 1937 trial when the load was seven boxes. Presumably they were testing for exceptional loads from the several nearby racing stables. He does not say how successful the trial was, but he suggests that a more typical load on the branch was a trailer car or a couple of horseboxes. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Wow! - I didn't realise they were allowed to haul so much. Probably worth pointing out (as covered in another recent HB thread) that #18 was specially built for this use on the Lambourn branch, the other cars wouldnt be allowed the same load. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach bogie Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 If anyone is looking for further information on the GWR Horseboxes, Great Western Journal has been running a continuous series of all the different diagrams. The new edition, no 81 Winter 2012 is now in the shops with part 4 and covers The N13 (Parkside) to N15. Next issue should cover the N16 (Hornby). Very useful for numberings, dual/vac only, livery and stables branding, circus vans, denparts vans, etc, and details of boxes altered to suit a particular customer/stable. Mike Wiltshire Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold gwrrob Posted March 29, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 29, 2012 Just a bump for this topic and a heads up on the release of the large lettered GW version of the horsebox.This livery is incorrect for this later diagram so it will be interesting to see how well they sell compared with the shirtbutton livery. http://www.gaugemaster.com/item_details.asp?code=R6562 http://www.ehattons.com/51123/Hornby_Model_Railways_R6562_GWR_Horse_Box_Due_2nd_Qtr/StockDetail.aspx 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 I thought we had already established that the Hornby box is N16, Lot 1577, built in 1937. Anything seen in 1932 with 16" GW letters would have been N15 or earlier. Or, perhaps, the next issue of GWRJ will turn all this on its head? btw Robin's mention of 'large' GW had me worried, I thought perhaps Hornby had created an even greater error and released it with the 25" letters Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dilbert Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 I thought we had already established that the Hornby box is N16, Lot 1577, built in 1937. Anything seen in 1932 with 16" GW letters would have been N15 or earlier. Or, perhaps, the next issue of GWRJ will turn all this on its head? There appears to be an error in GWRJ N° 81, pg 56) in that the reference to Lot 1577 has been attributed to dia. N15 instead of Lot 1461. Looking thru the facsimile copies of the Horse Box Index in Russell's GW Coaches Appendix 2, stock numbers in the range 515 - 599 were allocated to both N15 (Lot 1461) & N16 (Lot 1577). There is no real pattern to this (apart from the attribution being completely random), but 516, which I believe is the number to be used by Hornby, is in fact a dia N16...dilbert 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 The number list in the N15 section of the GWRJ article only mentions lots 1444 and 1461, The subheading "Lot 1577" here is clearly an error and should say "Lot 1461". If you examine the numbers referred to in that section, you'll find they are all ones listed above under Lot 1461. In addition, it refers to No 1518 which I assume should be No 518. No doubt all will be corrected in the next issue. There's a slightly cryptic remark in Russell's coaches vol 2 that the numbers 515 to 599 were mixed between these two lots. Harris doesn't list NPCS lots, but it is clear from his listing of lots that 1461 should be somewhere around 1931/2 and 1577 should be early 1937. These agree with both the GWRJ article (ignoring errors) and Russell. The Hornby box is most definitely N16. It has straight ends which are the main distinguishing feature of this diagram from N15 and other recent predecessors. Nick 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dilbert Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) Russell's Appendix 2 - 'The Brown Vehicles' lists the cryptic comment you refer to on a stock/Lot/dia. number basis - it's on pg 276 - there are indices also for other diagrams... dilbert Edited March 31, 2012 by dilbert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Russell's Appendix 2 - 'The Brown Vehicles' lists the cryptic comment you refer to on a stock/Lot/dia. number basis - it's on pg 276 - there are indices also for other diagrams... dilbert Thanks for that. I knew I'd seen that list somewhere, just couldn't remember where it was. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
petee19 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I just happened to look through the current copy of the' Great Western Railway Journal',Spring 2012 magazine in WHS today and there is an interesting article on these horseboxes with quite a selection of photographs. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold gwrrob Posted December 27, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 27, 2013 I received the G W lettered version of this R6562 for Christmas.I've just took it out of it's box and found that Hornby are now releasing this model with the correct black ends ! They might have read this thread.Was just about to get my paintbrush out too. I will be putting a shirtbutton on it though. 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