Traeth Mawr -Building Mr Price's house , (mostly)

[corneliuslundie]

My daughter in law has a similar device, bought for commercial craft activities - see the website belovedly. But she has agreed to take a test file from me when I can get around to producing one. I just need a suitable prototype. Possible one of the GWR 4-wheelers transferred to the RR/GWR joint line when it opened, as they are not available as commercial offerings, being too early.

Jonathan

[drduncan]

Chris,

 

Are you aware of Richard Spratt’s excellent website ‘Penrhos Junction’ which details all of his research into GWR 4 & 6 wheel coaches as it shows that the Ratio 4 wheeler GWR all third body is identical to that used on a 6w all third.

 

Regards

 

Duncan

[ChrisN]

Chris,

 

Are you aware of Richard Spratt’s excellent website ‘Penrhos Junction’ which details all of his research into GWR 4 & 6 wheel coaches as it shows that the Ratio 4 wheeler GWR all third body is identical to that used on a 6w all third.

 

Regards

 

Duncan

 

Duncan,

Thank you.  I have Richard's site bookmarked but I had missed the fact that the Ratio all third is the same as a six wheeler all third.  I just need to sort out my six wheel chassis.

[ChrisN]

Duncan,

Do you remember what collection the through carriage information s in?

[drduncan]

I’m away at the moment. I’ll check when I get home.

D

[drduncan]

The TNA basic search engine (the inappropriately named ‘Discovery ‘) is dreadful. Go straight to advanced searches. Use RAIL as the series and search for GWR through carriages or coaches (can’t remember which worked).

D

[ChrisN]

The TNA basic search engine (the inappropriately named ‘Discovery ‘) is dreadful. Go straight to advanced searches. Use RAIL as the series and search for GWR through carriages or coaches (can’t remember which worked).

D

 

Duncan,

Tried that, again.  Still no joy.

[drduncan]

Duncan,

Tried that, again.  Still no joy.

Rail938/1 to Rail 938/17 (which takes you to 1914) there are more in the rail 938 series post 1914.

D

[ChrisN]

Rail938/1 to Rail 938/17 (which takes you to 1914) there are more in the rail 938 series post 1914.

D

 

Duncan,

Bingo!  Thank you. 

[Penrhos1920]

According to what Jack Slinn wrote on the drawing it is E25. I am pretty confident that that is correct. The E36 will be rather later, 1892 as far as I can see, Lot [/size]630, though Harris has E? and E35 against that lot. But Jack has written E3[/size]6 on the Lot [/size]630 drawing. I can let you have a copy of that too if you like.[/size]

Jonathan

I can confirm that the drawing Jonathan posted earlier is diagram E25.

 

Lot 630 had 2 designs of coach, diagrams E35 & E36.

[ChrisN]

I can confirm that the drawing Jonathan posted earlier is diagram E25.

 

Lot 630 had 2 designs of coach, diagrams E35 & E36.

 

Thank you, that is most helpful.  I assume the differences between the two were minor.

[ChrisN]

I did as I threatened, or said earlier, buy a GWR Saddle Tank, to fit a Hornby Railroad Pannier tank to make a 645 class.  I will post a picture but I have only just made the top fit the chassis.  On the site it says that some are a tight fit and need a little filing and mine did, but not too much.  I have clipped it on and am a little uncertain that I can remove it but that is a problem for after the photo.  It fits the chassis exactly with the same clip fitting as the Hornby superstructure so to try and take 3mm off the bunker would mean doing the same to the chassis and losing the fitting.  I can live with 3mm.  

 

Now I need some help from GWR buffs who have started to read this thread.  Here is a picture of a 645 class that I wish to model.  Here is a picture, of a Buffalo class saddle tank which this time round is the best I can find of the class that the print is a model of.  It is on this page of GWR Modelling.  Or even better from Wikipeadia an 850 class.  Now it looks to me as though, apart from the numbers of plates on the tank the only difference is the size of the dome.  The 645 dome appears much bigger.  Now is that correct for 1895 when I wish to model it.  (No I am going to model it in 2019 but it represents the condition in 1895, just to avoid confusion.)  Would the chimneys have been the same?  I am sure the valve covers would have been.  On this photo the whistles appear to be the same height if not the same thickness..

 

So thoughts please, and if anyone knows where to get the bigger dome please let me know, and where to find buffers apart from Slaters.

 

Thank you again.

 

Have a happy and peaceful New Year.

Edited December 31, 2018 by ChrisN

[Miss Prism]

The 645 class and the Buffalo class were significantly different. The 645 had a wider footplate, different boiler pitch and a different saddle profile. The 645 looked 'fatter' than the Buffalo. Saddle tank domes varied in size, and I'm reluctant to ascribe any guide. Chimneys on saddle tanks generally came in three heights, the most common being the early tall ones and medium-height ones for mid-period.

 

Getting the right look for your chosen loco is probably a bit of a head-banging exercise. The drawings in the Jim Russell engines book are partially helpful, but need some interpretation.

[ChrisN]

The 645 class and the Buffalo class were significantly different. The 645 had a wider footplate, different boiler pitch and a different saddle profile. The 645 looked 'fatter' than the Buffalo. Saddle tank domes varied in size, and I'm reluctant to ascribe any guide. Chimneys on saddle tanks generally came in three heights, the most common being the early tall ones and medium-height ones for mid-period.

 

Getting the right look for your chosen loco is probably a bit of a head-banging exercise. The drawings in the Jim Russell engines book are partially helpful, but need some interpretation.

 

Thank you.  This is to fool those of an untrained eye, it will certainly never be exhibited.  The print needs some work on it so I may be able to change the profile a little, it will certainly have only three sections when I am finished.  The Buffalo class is also outside framed so perhaps the 850 is a better comparison.  What I end up with will be more of a representation rather than an exact model.  

 

I want a model of a 645 as I have seen a picture of one on the Ruabon Dolgelley line and it is the only definite class I have identified.

[ChrisN]

As I threaten promised here is the picture of the saddle tank on the Pannier chassis

 

 

As you can see it fits the length exactly.  The Shapeways site says that you may need to file a little off either end to make it fit.  I had to do this but did it very carefully as there is not a lot of plastic at the back.  Before that I folded back the TV suppression capacitor as it poked out over the end of the chassis and so made it longer.  It now fits, just, and as I said I now need to now prise it off.  

 

 

This image shows clearly the ribbing on the saddle tank.  I had intended to do as advised and spray it with Halford's grey primer and sand it down.  I may still do that but I may cover it in filler after what Miss Prim said yesterday and therefore make it a little larger.  Either way what I will not do is to clean out the plating grooves so that I can change it into a three plate tank

[Mikkel]

Good to see this project getting underway Chris. Those are useful views, thanks for sharing them.

 

Apart from the tanks, the ribbing looks rather pronounced on the smokebox door. Might be tricky to sand it? One option could be to file it away entirely and replace it. Brassmasters sell the ex-Finney kit components, and the MF66 part might work if it's reasonably close to the 645 door. It would probably be the first time in history that a Hornby chassis and a Finney component feature on the same loco 

 

I can understand if you're trying to avoid that sort of thing though, it quickly leads down a path where a kit would have been just as easy.

[ChrisN]

Good to see this project getting underway Chris. Those are useful views, thanks for sharing them.

 

Apart from the tanks, the ribbing looks rather pronounced on the smokebox door. Might be tricky to sand it? One option could be to file it away entirely and replace it. Brassmasters sell the ex-Finney kit components, and the MF66 part might work if it's reasonably close to the 645 door. It would probably be the first time in history that a Hornby chassis and a Finney component feature on the same loco 

 

I can understand if you're trying to avoid that sort of thing though, it quickly leads down a path where a kit would have been just as easy.

 

Mikkel,

Thank you, and Happy New Year.  The smokebox door itself is not too bad, it just has the usual rough finish which I can deal with by spraying with primer and rubbing with a cocktail stick.  The tank is more difficult.  The site I bought if from says spray and file and the primer will also act as a filler and that you may need to do this a few times.  I may try just spraying it as the thought of finding a thin enough filler and not getting it to look awful is a bit daunting.  

 

Well I might as well start another project as it seems the first 10% gets done quite quickly.  Things that will hold this up.  1) I need a nice warm day to spray.  2)  Need to decide if it should be a short or long chimney, although probably short.  3)Where to source the larger dome.  4)  The buffers appear to be more parallel than the Dean type.  Did Wolverhampton have its own design?  An Armstrong buffer?  5) Time.

 

However, it does appear to be something that can be done between other things.  Christmas has meant more time and sitting with my wife watching 'who dun its' on the tele so I have been working on Silhouette files if not much else.  Usual business returns next week.  Perhaps I will have to try and do what you do and grab twenty minutes each day.

[MikeOxon]

I usually describe myself as an 'impressionist' modeller so, to my eyes, your saddle tank looks fine!  You will find a lot of useful information Jim Champ's 'Beginners Guide to Pannier Tanks' at http://www.gwr.org.uk/nopanniers.html

 

Although the title is 'Pannier Tanks', there are quite a few photos of Saddles, as well, and lots about the various classes.

 

Mike

[ChrisN]

I usually describe myself as an 'impressionist' modeller so, to my eyes, your saddle tank looks fine!  You will find a lot of useful information Jim Champ's 'Beginners Guide to Pannier Tanks' at http://www.gwr.org.uk/nopanniers.html

 

Although the title is 'Pannier Tanks', there are quite a few photos of Saddles, as well, and lots about the various classes.

 

Mike

 

Mike,

Thanks.  That is where I got the picture of the 850 but as it said Pannier tanks I went no further.  I will have a look.  

[ChrisN]

Hello everyone after how many days of being down, the site that is not me.  Now do not get excited this is not a modelling update as I have had about 30 minutes modelling in the last, well as long as I can remember.  This is just to say that all the content that I have replied to has disappeared and I have tended to follow only content I have replied to, as 1) it was easier, and 2) I tended to reply to those I wanted to follow.  This may mean, and I have not checked yet that I may not be able to find your thread to read.  Hopefully I will find it eventually, and it does appear that I am at last getting Blog notifications, (Yea!) which means that when Mikkel or Mike Oxen post on their blogs I will see it straight away and not turn up three weeks later.

So if I do not pop in then I am sorry but hopefully I will find you.  

If you do not see this then I am doubly sorry as I may not find you and you will not know.

 

If you have been,thanks for looking

[Simond]

Chris,

hang in there.  I think your “followed topics” will appear in your “my activity” tab, mine certainly seem to have done so, but they were not there earlier.

 

all the best

Simon

[ChrisN]

55 minutes ago, Simond said:

Chris,

hang in there.  I think your “followed topics” will appear in your “my activity” tab, mine certainly seem to have done so, but they were not there earlier.

 

all the best

Simon

 

Simon,

I have a 'Managed Followed Content' tab but no 'ChrisN's Content'.  I am now getting notifications, which I had turned off as I did not need them for my content.  I have just realised that I do not follow my own thread, (Why would you?), so did not know you had posted.  Umm, I have the 'box' ticked 'Notify me of replies' but I was not.

Also I have just seen,  which is much much worse, it has an AMERICAN ENGLISH SPELLCHECKER!!!!!  ARRRGGGHHHHH!  Can we change that?

[aberdare]

Hi Chris

 

I'm just starting to reply to posts and find my way around, I always have a little grumble to start with over the changes but soon get used to them, like you I am just trying to get followed threads back and get used to the changes.

 

Let's hope we can get back to some modelling soon.

 

Jim

[ChrisN]

7 hours ago, aberdare said:

Hi Chris

 

I'm just starting to reply to posts and find my way around, I always have a little grumble to start with over the changes but soon get used to them, like you I am just trying to get followed threads back and get used to the changes.

 

Let's hope we can get back to some modelling soon.

 

Jim

 

Jim,

I used to post on threads I wanted to follow and have lost them all now.  I will need to have a hunt when I have time.  I am just about to post on yours so I can keep up.  All the best.

[Northroader]

I’m racking my brains to remember all the threads I liked, then doing a search for each one. Then when it comes up there’s a “follow” to click at the top of each page.  Then you pick up new posts on the activity thingy. There’s probably a simpler way of doing it, wonder what Mr. Price thinks about it all?