'New Colletts from Old'

[lofty1966]

 

lofty - the E116 close-coupling arrangement was probably a tommy bar like the contemporary D87 and E124 sets (also built in 1924), as shown in: http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrms1787.htm

 

(The D87 and E124s were bow-ended, so the tommy bars went through buffing plate boxes on the flat headstocks.)

Belated thank you for the info Miss P

[HowardGWR]

On Project 1 (making the best of Railroad) I have been tied up with painting. I decided not to use any fancy new bits for the headstock and buffers, but to try and fettle the ones I had previously cut off to be the older oblong / oval ones, which were more typical for the Colletts and to make the housings as square=ish rather than round.  This very cruel photo shews what I achieved so far.  I shall do some further work with the help of the blown up photo.  The bits sticking out the sides are the remains of the step board which I shall attempt to line up with my underframe ones so as to help make a continuous step board.  I'll have to work out a way of getting a coupling hook into the middle of the headstock, where Hornby's blob that is supposed to be that (!) resides.  

 

Oh, the saw cut went a bit wrong on one but that will not matter once it goes on the underframe.

 

[lofty1966]

Those buffers need to go. Comet/wizard do them as an end pack with jumper cables and corridor connectors. A worthwhile investment.

[HowardGWR]

Those buffers need to go. Comet/wizard do them as an end pack with jumper cables and corridor connectors. A worthwhile investment.

Yes I've got all those thanks.  I am trying to make do with the plastic bits that I've got.  Just wait till I've finished fettling, now I've seen all those wonky shapes in close up!

 

I'll do another photo later - ( and er, then maybe bin them).  

I'm not sure what the RMWeb smilies mean but this one appealed.

 

Update:  Having scoured for a decent drawing of the old oval buffer, I have failed so far.  Anyone have a reference for this please?  Better still, do any still exist in,preservation? 

Edited February 20, 2017 by HowardGWR

[HowardGWR]

I've just noticed that K14 may be able to help (again!).  I see that 92 at Didcot has the oval /oblong buffer heads*.  I always think the buffers on the auto trailers look bigger than the ones on coaches, but I suspect that is because they stick out on those extended shanks. I have some, by ABS, but they look a bit big too.  Is it possible, Pete, that you could take a measure to produce the following please?  Maximum width of buffer head and height of same.  I can interpolate the rest (shape of curve, etc,) and plan to cut these out or fettle the ABS ones, unless the ABS ones turn out to be spot on of course, after all.

 

Quite understand if you are too busy, thanks.

 

*I notice also that the auto stock seemed to retain their oval buffer heads whereas the ordinary coaching stock seemed to get replacement 18" circular ones by the 1950s.  Russell books have this enormous gap between the works photos of the 20s /30s and the enthusiast ones of the 50s.  This poses a problem to GWR 30s modellers,as you don't know when these things were updated or replaced.     

Edited February 22, 2017 by HowardGWR

[K14]

Hi Howard,

 

Nowhere near any trailers at the moment so can't oblige. However...

 

On p.103 of Vol. 1 of John Lewis' Trailer books is a reproduction of 28493^A – "Buffer for Steam Railmotor & Trailer Cars" dated July 1910. The dimensions are pretty illegible (even with a 1200dpi scan). I've endeavoured to scale this up using what few dimensions can be read & my best guess on the head dimensions is H = 13", W= 25-5/8" — the drawing states that the radii are 6" at the ends of the head and 5' 7-1/4" top & bottom.

 

Wild Swan's Official Drawings No.3 - Great Western Coaches has some information:—

 

27115, L. 1068 — E.77 (Dreadnought) Feb. 1905:– Oval, approx. 17-1/2" X 13" (measured from weight drawing)

87929, L.1424 to 1428 — E.137, E.138, C.59, D.105, D.106 (Cornish Riviera stock) April 1929:– Round, 1' 6" dia.

106201^A,  L.1573 & 1574 — C.73 & D.124 Oct. 1936:– Round, 1' 6" dia.

 

From my collection:—

 

40929 - Arrangement of Connections, Jan.1910: – Oval, approx. 17" X 12" (measured & scaled).

88030 - 59' 10-1/2" Underframe, Feb. 1929: – Round, 1' 6".

 

I also wondered if the oval heads were a continuation of Dean stock, as both 933 & 1941 have oval heads. 15585 – "44ft-11in Underframe" dated Sept. 1899 scales up as 16-7/8" X 12-1/4", so that bit smaller.

 

Pete S.

[HowardGWR]

Very interesting K14, thank you.  My ABS(Adrian Swain)-made white metal ones are 4.5 mm height and 7 mm wide.  This translates to 13;5" high x 21"  wide, so your interpolations from drawings were not too far out, it appears, but at this scale, 'a little means a lot'.  I made the mistake (see post #377 above) of 'fettling' the top and bottom.  I can't remember why I decided the Railroad buffers were too big and roundy, now.  Those in the photo measure 3.8 mm x 6.2 mm.  I have just measured an untouched Railroad pair and guess what?  4.5mm x 7 mm, same as ABS.  Good old Hornby Railroad!  They are spot on if ABS is correct, and your interpolations are also near enough, especially the height..

 

If you do get the chance to put a tape across 92's buffers, I would still be interested to learn the result.  I must get that Wild Swan book, it seems.  As a general point, I think that one cannot measure too accurately in 4mm scale, as the differences of 1 mm (3" full size) are very noticeable for some parts of the model; perhaps not for others.  Indeed, for some items, an 0.3 mm error would look quite wrong. 

 

Finally, those curve radii are most interesting.  I wonder what was the thought that produced that design in the first place.  Why the square-ish  shafts and housings?  Just the GWR being different again?   

[Horsetan]

.... Why the square-ish  shafts and housings?  Just the GWR being different again?   

 

OT, but I've only ever seen an ancient Dart Castings pack of sprung buffers - long out of production - which had the correct square-section shafts. No other 4mm scale sprung-buffer supplier seems to have done this - not MJT or MRD; is it deemed too difficult to reproduce nowadays?

[nigel newling]

... Both David Geen and Slaters do them

[Horsetan]

... Both David Geen ...

 

in 4mm? With square shanked buffer rams (not just the stocks / housings)? Sprung?

[nigel newling]

David Geen GW/16,

 

Slater's 4913

[chrisf]

I fear that the shanks of the David Geen and Slaters buffers are too short and the heads are on the small side.

 

Chris

[Coach bogie]

I fear that the shanks of the David Geen and Slaters buffers are too short and the heads are on the small side.

 

Chris

The David Geen buffers are produced by Slater's for him.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[nigel newling]

The shank length is fine on the master. The mistake is that they often get cut (or broken) from the sprue at the spring notch rather than the true end of the shank. I have brought this to the attention of Slater on more than one occasion and been supplied with replacements_.

Edited February 24, 2017 by nigel newling

[chrisf]

Mea culpa, I meant to say that the stocks are too short, by about 25%.  By stock I do of course mean the casting in which the shank slides.  I suppose someone will tell me now that I am the only one who has noticed and I need tablets to treat OCD but if you hold up a shank to a scale drawing, such as the one on page 62 of "Official Drawings No. 3" the shortfall is quite apparent.

 

Perhaps this weekend's homework will be to solder rectangular washers to the stocks of the castings that I have in stock and then, when that does not work, learn to love the otherwise excellent products of Dart Castings/MJT or Model Railway Developments which have round shanks sliding in rectangular stocks.  Eminent folk tell me that the difference is not noticeable.

 

Chris

[Horsetan]

.... round shanks sliding in rectangular stocks.  Eminent folk tell me that the difference is not noticeable.

 

Yes it is! 

[Horsetan]

David Geen GW/16,

 

Slater's 4913

 

Excellent. I shall have to give these a go....

[HowardGWR]

OT, but I've only ever seen an ancient Dart Castings pack of sprung buffers - long out of production - which had the correct square-section shafts. No other 4mm scale sprung-buffer supplier seems to have done this - not MJT or MRD; is it deemed too difficult to reproduce nowadays?

Not OT, IMO, as this RMWeb area is for model and prototype.  Yes, and I follow also your posting about whether the round shanks are noticeable  I think it is far more interesting that folk moaned about the size of the  new Hornby C54 model buffer heads when they might have been more concerned whether their numbered model should have had oval ones instead, as had all of them, bar the last 4 of the last lot, in 1929.  Then one has to ponder when some of those may have received round ones, later on.  :-)

 

 

(See  page 33 of RCA2 for C54 comparison.  Note more differences such as flush glaze that also only applies to 5177 to 5180. )

[HowardGWR]

Mea culpa, I meant to say that the stocks are too short, by about 25%.  By stock I do of course mean the casting in which the shank slides.  I suppose someone will tell me now that I am the only one who has noticed and I need tablets to treat OCD but if you hold up a shank to a scale drawing, such as the one on page 62 of "Official Drawings No. 3" the shortfall is quite apparent.

 

Perhaps this weekend's homework will be to solder rectangular washers to the stocks of the castings that I have in stock and then, when that does not work, learn to love the otherwise excellent products of Dart Castings/MJT or Model Railway Developments which have round shanks sliding in rectangular stocks.  Eminent folk tell me that the difference is not noticeable.

 

Chris

I've seen this discussed before. Tell me why what follows is nonsense.  Take the buffer spindle (the shank?) and just file it square-ish back from the buffer head to the point where it disappears into the shank housing (the stock is it?).

 

I forgot to say, of course, that the Railroad stock and shank are round so they were filed square.   Not quite right and I think they are a bit short, possibly.  They are the same length as the ABS though.

 

Anyone know the correct length of the whole to the buffer head? 

Edited February 24, 2017 by HowardGWR

[nigel newling]

My latest pack of Slater's 4193 have a small round head cast on the end of the buffer shank. Included in the pack is an etch of round and oval heads that can be glued / soldered to the base shank to make up either form of the buffer.

[chrisf]

 

Anyone know the correct length of the whole to the buffer head? 

 

According to the aforementioned drawing, 1 ft 10 in.

 

I forgot to mention, assuming that it matters of course, that I prefer sprung buffers.

 

Chris

Edited February 24, 2017 by chrisf

[HowardGWR]

Thanks Chris, the ABS ones are thus spot on at 7.3 mm, the Railroad at 6 mm are well short.  You did not comment on my suggestion.  I meant, perhaps not clearly, that, even with sprung buffers, the squareness could be achieved in the bit that sticks out from the stock to the back of the buffer head.  Would that not do?

Edited February 24, 2017 by HowardGWR

[HowardGWR]

My latest pack of Slater's 4193 have a small round head cast on the end of the buffer shank. Included in the pack is an etch of round and oval heads that can be glued / soldered to the base shank to make up either form of the buffer.

Ooh, that's good.  I shall investigate.  Dealing with the Comet ends at the moment on Project 2 and the steps are very crude.  I think I will file them off and make plastic ones, as have done already with my plastic ends on project 1, the same as Lofty1966 did with his. 

 

Update  - any illustrations of those anywhere (I have had a look, no luck yet).

 

Update2  Found these   

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Slaters-4913-4mm-Scale-GWR-Square-Shanks-Coach-Buffer-Set-New-Pack-/121213961091?hash=item1c38ea4383:m:m_SOyUvhRfWSsjhOL-g9T_Q

 

Can't really work it all out from the illustration.  Bit pricey of course.

Edited February 24, 2017 by HowardGWR

[chrisf]

Thanks Chris, the ABS ones are thus spot on at 7.3 mm, the Railroad at 6 mm are well short.  You did not comment on my suggestion.  I meant, perhaps not clearly, that, even with sprung buffers, the squareness could be achieved in the bit that sticks out from the stock to the back of the buffer head.  Would that not do?

 

Sorry, Howard.  It would depend on the thickness and diameter of the shank and whether it is made of whitemetal [easy to file] or steel [less so].  Many steel buffer heads are made with very thin shanks which would have to be augmented rather than filed away and the hole in the stock enlarged to a rectangular shape where there is precious little material to remove.

 

Chris

[nigel newling]

Ooh, that's good.  I shall investigate.  Dealing with the Comet ends at the moment on Project 2 and the steps are very crude.  I think I will file them off and make plastic ones, as have done already with my plastic ends on project 1, the same as Lofty1966 did with his. 

 

Update  - any illustrations of those anywhere (I have had a look, no luck yet).

 

Update2  Found these   

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Slaters-4913-4mm-Scale-GWR-Square-Shanks-Coach-Buffer-Set-New-Pack-/121213961091?hash=item1c38ea4383:m:m_SOyUvhRfWSsjhOL-g9T_Q

 

Can't really work it all out from the illustration.  Bit pricey of course.

The brass sprue shows the 4 stocks that comprise the set. 2 silver Buffer shanks are visible, care is needed to remove them from the sprue as they can snap at the notch along their length. This notch is to accommodate the fork on the end of the spring etch. The round heads in the  etch are visible. The oval heads are obscured behind the spring etch.