GWR Collett BG/Full Brake

[D869]

Not a K41, but here is a photo taken from the footbridge at Buckfastleigh of the roof of W1645W. Maybe this is what people are expecting.

 

I don't know whether the K41 should be the same or not - sorry. My gut feel though is that the pronounced 'step' looks odd.

 

 

Regards, Andy

 

[Chris Higgs]

Not a K41, but here is a photo taken from the footbridge at Buckfastleigh of the roof of W1645W. Maybe this is what people are expecting.

 

I don't know whether the K41 should be the same or not - sorry. My gut feel though is that the pronounced 'step' looks odd.

 

P1020088.JPG

 

Regards, Andy

 

Not the same as it happens. The roof and side profiles changed with every design, and this is from a few years later.

 

Chris

[BernardTPM]

Sorry, but 1645 is a 1938 pattern D127 Brake Third, so is not like a K41. These later coaches had a completely different roof profile that broke away from the previous style used between 1933 and 1937 (pre-1933 was similar, but the roof panelling was different). K42 was to the revised pattern though.

[BernardTPM]

The coach shown here http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7220/6901714686_6ea6231a5f_o.jpg has the same style roof/rainstrip and was contemporary to the K41.

[BMacdermott]

Hello Ben

 

Thank you for posting the CADs.

 

You may recall that the Wishlist Poll Team assisted with some outline notes for you last year. I approached Team Member, John Lewis (author of numerous GWR rolling stock books), on your behalf as he is not an RMweb member. He sent me the following notes for you, but has asked me to point out that these are not ‘criticisms’ – simply comments for consideration.

 

Kind regards

 

Brian Macdermott

 

Notes from John Lewis

 

I expect they have found the pictures in Russell GW Coaches AppendixVol 2, (RCA2 below) Figs 374 - 376 and GW Coaches Part 2, Pg 202.

Much depends on how detailed and accurate the NGS want to be, but perhaps the following might be of help:

1. The bogies should have steps at both ends of each bogie.

2. I am not sure what the central box on the underframe represents. I don't think it is in Russell's pictures. There should be a dynamo. No.147 (RCA2 Fig 376), was fitted with a “combined gas radiator and food warmer" in October 1947. It would have had a gas cylinder fitted to the underframe at that time which probably when this photo was taken. Note the round white dial of the pressure gauge! The NGS may well wish to leave this gas cylinder to the modeller.

3. The roof ventilator over the guard's compartment should be in line with the left hand edge of the non-opening window. In fact, they should check all the roof ventilator positions with RCA2 Fig 376. The capping strips over the ends of the roof panels were almost invisible in service.

4. I think there should be two end steps above the gangway connectors.

5. The gangway connector suspension brackets may be rather far apart. The rods that hang down from them are quite close to the connector sides, and are quite slim.

6. End detail: The electrical cables shown on the end drawing were not straight but bowed slightly. I think there should be an angled handle low down on the ends each side, a horizontal one above them, just below the level of the bottom of the window and there should be the long handles that reach the roof.

7. Don't forget the other side of the coach was different - see RCA2 Fig 374 and 375. The guard's doors had a long vertical commode handle on the coach body to the right. The guard's doors had a step directly underneath them hung off the solebars and not slightly to one side as drawn.

8. Brake rodding and steampipe missing.

[Chris Higgs]

The coach shown here http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7220/6901714686_6ea6231a5f_o.jpg has the same style roof/rainstrip and was contemporary to the K41.

 

The photo also shows nicely the V hanger arrangement I have been discussing, as there is in this case no lower footboard to obscure it.

 

Chris

[roythebus]

I'd suggest that the straight/bowed cables depended on the length of the cables when fitted! Replacements could have been a bit longer, so would appear bowed when stowed away.

[Revolution Ben]

Thanks to everyone who's contributed to this thread.

 

I have prepared notes to send to Dapol with these comments included.  I hadn't noticed that the corridor connector supports were too widely set but I can see they are and will add that in.

 

The underframe will be modified so the battery boxes are separate parts.  The "other" box (I think it's a propane gas tank holder) may be supplied as a customer-fit component so those who don't want it for their period can leave it off.

 

Also, the drawings I have suggest the handrails next to the guard's door are in two parts - is this correct?

 

The other remaining unkown is whether the steps are at both ends, or just the guard's end.

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

[Revolution Ben]

Not a K41, but here is a photo taken from the footbridge at Buckfastleigh of the roof of W1645W. Maybe this is what people are expecting.

 

I don't know whether the K41 should be the same or not - sorry. My gut feel though is that the pronounced 'step' looks odd.

 

Regards, Andy

 

Hello Andy

 

The K41s did have a pronounced step - I believe it is to allow the vehicle to be used off the GWR which, thanks to its broad gauge heritage, had a more relaxed loading gauge than other regions.

 

Because we could be sure the K41s strayed further afield in BR days it seemed sensible to do this variant, rather than one of the others that would have been more limited in operation.

 

Also, the one at Didcot that I was able to measure was a K41, which kind of sealed the deal.

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

[Miss Prism]

The K41s did have a pronounced step - I believe it is to allow the vehicle to be used off the GWR which, thanks to its broad gauge heritage, had a more relaxed loading gauge than other regions.

 

Correct conclusion but wrong premise. There is a distinction between, on one hand, the style of the cantrail interface (e.g. early Collett, mid-period Collett, late Collett), which did not affect route availability, and on the other hand, the width over the cantrail, which did have an affect on route availability, along with body width of course. These cantrail widths were variously (to the nearest inch): 8'9" 'Cross-country' go-anywhere stock, 8'11" general purpose (and, subject to body length and body width, usually permissible on most other regions, at least in respect of main lines), and 9'2" GWR route-restricted stock.

[Karhedron]

I don't know whether the K41 should be the same or not - sorry. My gut feel though is that the pronounced 'step' looks odd.

The K41s did have a pronounced step - I believe it is to allow the vehicle to be used off the GWR which, thanks to its broad gauge heritage, had a more relaxed loading gauge than other regions.

Hello,

 

I agree, rummaging through some of the earlier photos on this thread shows the step on the K41 cantrail interface is quite prominent. I think that 111 at Didcot is quite representative.

[Taz]

Thanks to everyone who's contributed to this thread.

 

I have prepared notes to send to Dapol with these comments included.  I hadn't noticed that the corridor connector supports were too widely set but I can see they are and will add that in.

 

 

 

Also, the drawings I have suggest the handrails next to the guard's door are in two parts - is this correct?

 

The other remaining unkown is whether the steps are at both ends, or just the guard's end.

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

Ben, to answer these two questions.

 

Yes, the guard's door  handrails were in two parts.

 

The steps were only at one end. there were four up either side and two above the gangway. There were handrails at this end only as well.

[Karhedron]

Does anyone have the tare weight of the K41s handy?

[BernardTPM]

Weighs 28t 4cwt, carries 15 tons (GW Coaches Appendix 2)

[Tricky-CRS]

Taken at Didcot this week.

 

[Revolution Ben]

Hello all,

 

With thanks to Matthew (Karhedron) and Bernard (TPM) have now finalised the livery diagrams for the NGS Collett BGs.  We are offering 8 initially, and as the chocolate and cream has been the most popular in pre-orders we have decided to offer a second variant in this scheme.   We may yet add another in BR maroon (probably with destination markings for variety) as BR Maroon sales are catching up.

 

1 - No. 109 GWR chocolate and cream with crest:

 

 

2:  No. 181 GWR plain chocolate with roundel:

 

 

3: No. W152  BR Crimson and Cream:

 

 

4:  No. W106W BR plain Crimson:

 

 

5: No. W112W BR maroon:

 

 

6: No. W141W BR blue:

 

 

7:  No. ADB 975157 Enparts:

 

 

8: No. 147 GWR chocolate and cream.

 

 

I am now awaiting revised CAD drawings from Dapol and will post these when I have them; once metal is cut the next stage will be moulded samples.

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

[gwrrob]

I hope these sell well Ben and here's hoping one of the 4mm players fancies ago for people like me who never finish the Comet kit build version they started.I do like the plain choccy GWR version.

[Etched Pixels]

Any reason they are both Carmarthen rather than one being "Paddington Penzance/Paddington Chester" or similar as per other photos in Russell. Not complaining just curious ?

 

I assume the guards hand rail not being split is just a livery drawing quirk ?

[Revolution Ben]

Hi Alan

 

Yes, the drawings are purely illustrative.  The revised CAD - when it comes - will be posted to give an indication of what the model will actually look like.

 

As for Carmarthen - I hadn't noticed the duplication but it's a good point though.  Maybe we should alter the crimson and cream version.  Not too late.  Any offers of a correct combination of destination and number?

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

[Ozexpatriate]

I hope these sell well Ben and here's hoping one of the 4mm players fancies ago for people like me who never finish the Comet kit build version they started.I do like the plain choccy GWR version.

Indeed. Very nice looking indeed and nice to see these available for N gauge. It's a turnabout for 00 enthusiasts to be jealous, but I am.

[Tricky-CRS]

Penzance's gets my vote.

[Douglas G]

I have just ordered the maroon version now that it appears it will not be route-branded, unlike the one shown earlier.

 

The problem with route-branded coaches is that this limits the prototype area they can be used, at least in theory.

 

It is the same as with the Farish GWR Toad brake van.  The BR grey is the only version that has not sold-out so far, and I think this is because it has a specific depot branding.

 

These are looking good, Ben!

 

Douglas

[Calnefoxile]

Ben

 

Can you put your latest update onto the NGauge Forum as well please?? As not everyone on NGF is on here.

 

Regards

 

Neal.

[Revolution Ben]

 

Hello Douglas,

 

Yes, good point. As someone who looks "from afar" at these models as my own interests veer toward the present day, I suppose I see the route branding as something that makes individual ones more interesting.

 

I can see that the plain one might have appeal, but in early (1950s) BR days would the route branding have been rigidly adhered to?

 

Cheers

 

Ben A.

[Karhedron]

Any reason they are both Carmarthen rather than one being "Paddington Penzance/Paddington Chester" or similar as per other photos in Russell. Not complaining just curious ?

Mostly a shortage of photos of these vehicles in early BR days. For the Crimson and Cream livery, we only had 2 identifiable photos to allow us to accurately choose a livery. One was Paddington/Carmarthen and the other was the Penzance to Kensington milk train. Whilst interesting, we decided that the milk train branded one might be a bit too specific for some people's tastes.

 

I am not averse to changing any of the running numbers as long as we can find a photo or an accurate description of the vehicle in question. Early BR liveries are a bit of a minefield as Swindon tended to mix GWR and BR painting guidelines for a while. You can see this on the crimson and cream coach as the running number is on the left, rather than the right. If we picked a different running number without a photo or description, we might miss details like this or even produce one in a livery that was wrong for the chosen vehicle (i.e. it might have been plain crimson or gone straight from choc/cream to maroon).

 

 

I have just ordered the maroon version now that it appears it will not be route-branded, unlike the one shown earlier.

 

The problem with route-branded coaches is that this limits the prototype area they can be used, at least in theory.

I can see that the plain one might have appeal, but in early (1950s) BR days would the route branding have been rigidly adhered to?

Route branding was rather like rostered locos, it represented the normal operating pattern. This could be changed for any number of reasons on a given day so one might see a different vehicle on a working or see a vehicle "off its beaten track".

 

A good analgy would be auto-tank 1470 which was the engine for the Ashburton branch for many years. It was the normally rostered engine but other engines could be seen on the branch from time to time and 1470 was sometimes elsewhere.

 

Branded vehicles seem to be a bit more interesting provided the brandings are not overly restrictive. I did try and look for more generic brandings such as "Return to Paddington" but the problem was always finding suitable photos.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Karhedron