East Barnet Joint Stock - a workbench

[Chas Levin]

5 hours ago, Bucoops said:

 

I bought a set of those buffers to evaluate as possible to represent GNR/Early LNER coach buffers. 

 

 

I'm so pleased to read that Rich! I thought I might be pursuing a bit of a mad one with them, even though they look right to me, but if you had the same idea then I can't be totally off, can I?

 

The buffer head in your photo looks very similar to the Sentinel ones and looks to have exactly the same issues: the shoulders are slightly more rounded than the SECR ones and the face is ever so slightly convex.

 

I thought about filing back the shoulders to a better match, but the extreme unlikelihood of managing to get all four looking truly identical put me off. The eye notices incredibly small mismatches and these Markits buffers, machined in steel, look perfect: I think that's worth preserving, over the slightly differing shoulders and I'd think the same for GNR/early LNER coaches. What did you think - did you come to the same conclusions?

Edited March 26, 2023 by Chas Levin

[Bucoops]

11 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

I'm so pleased to read that Rich! I thought I might be pursuing a bit of a mad one with them, even tohugh they look right, but if you had the same idea then I can't be totally off it, can I?

 

That buffer in your photo looks very similar to the Sentinel ones and looks to have exactly the same issues: the shoulders are slightly more rounded than the SECR ones and the face is ever so slightly convex.

 

I thought about filing back the shoulders to a better match, but the extreme unlikelihood of managing to get all four looking truly identical put me off. The eye notices incredibly small mismatches and these Markits buffers, machined in steel, look perfect: I think that's worth preserving, over the slightly differing shoulders and I'd think the same for GNR/early LNER coaches. What did you think - did you come to the same conclusions?

 

Much of my stock that would need them would be within a rake so easier to hide mild differences compared to a railcar. I've not done anything with them as yet but my intention is not to touch the buffer heads, but file down the housing to be a bit closer to the GNR design, although the bolts and webs would be very conspicuous by their absence. I have toyed with asking Markits if they can produce a closer base but haven't tried as yet.

 

Edited March 26, 2023 by Bucoops

[Chas Levin]

Meanwhile, I decided to start on the steps by making up the ones from the driving end, the slightly narrower ones. These, as they appear on the Diagram 96/97 vehicles, are easier to visualise in construction than the passenger ones, as they're simply pieces of bar through flat side pieces:

 

 

I started off with two lengths of 1mm nickel silver strip (having found a supply!):

 

 

These were carefully soldered togther exactly in line, the idea being to allow drilling of 0.45mm holes through the two pieces at the same time, to keep the holes aligned:

 

 

 

After some cleaning up and rounding off of the ends, the joined pieces have four holes - the only critical spacing is between the two holes near each end, as that sets the spacing between the two steps:

 

 

The two pieces are then parted - I did two pairs of pieces to produce two sets of steps, one each side:

 

 

Each piece was then given a 90 degree twist from just above the higher hole, as per the prototype:

 

 

Then, 0.45mm brass wire was soldered into each hole - the assembly is shown here upside-down:

 

 

With the other side piece slipped on they're starting to look like steps:

 

 

I'll have to split this into another post - too many photos!

[Chas Levin]

That just left the question of how to set the spacing between the sides, 6.3mm on the Isinglass drawing. You'll never guess how wide the thick end of one side of a clothes peg is:

 

 

Cut to form a thinner end...

 

 

...it can be put between the NS strip sides to give the right spacing for soldering...

 

 

...and this is what slips off the peg (with a little persuasion, because the heat and flux swells the wood):

 

 

Here are the finished steps after trimming and a basic clean-up, next to the kit's white-metal ones - please bear in mind these are quite big close-ups, several times life-size and they do look a lot neater in reality:

 

 

I'll give them a more thorough cleaning with fibre-glass etc when I come to fit them. I've left the NS strip sides very long because I'm not yet sure how I'll fix them to the solebar, so I wanted some flexibility:

 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2023 by Chas Levin

[Bucoops]

Somewhere I have some RDEB LNER Buffer shank covers - couldn't find them so thought I would dig them out on the Wizard site. Oh look!

 

https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/carriage/lnec006/

 

No use for your one but I may have to grab a set to try. Just need to sort the bolts out. Posted more for anyone searching for GNR style ones in the future.

[Chas Levin]

13 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

 

Much of my stock that would need them would be within a rake so easier to hide mild differences compared to a railcar. I've not done anything with them as yet but my intention is not to touch the buffer heads, but file down the housing to be a bit closer to the GNR design, although the bolts and webs would be very conspicuous by their absence. I have toyed with asking Markits if they can produce a closer base but haven't tried as yet.

 

 

Yep, I think you're right not to touch the heads (I'm assuming you felt as I did that they'd never look quite as pristine again?) but you're right about the bolts and webs.

It might be worth asking Mark, though I think he has quite a backlog and I'm don't know if he actually does customer work or not.

 

Did you look through the whoile Markits range in detail then - and find these were the best match? I'd only looked so far at those items available through Roxey.

I'd also wondered if it might be possible two swap heads and bases - to put the heads we want to use in more suitable bases. I decided it probably wasn't relevant for me, as I don't think there are Markits bases that look like the Sentinel ones, but there might be some that have bolts and webs closser to what you need for GNR/LNER coaches.

 

I had a couple of other Markits buffers in stock so I compared and the problem of course is variation in thickness of the buffer shafts themselves and in the holes through which they go: they're all different, so swapping heads would only work if you happened to have two types with very similar shaft diameters. That's why I decided to pursue modifying the SECR bases, as the shafts are very thin.

 

I think I have the Markits catalogue upstairs - I'll go and take a look though, out of curiosity...

[Chas Levin]

42 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

Somewhere I have some RDEB LNER Buffer shank covers - couldn't find them so thought I would dig them out on the Wizard site. Oh look!

 

https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/carriage/lnec006/

 

No use for your one but I may have to grab a set to try. Just need to sort the bolts out. Posted more for anyone searching for GNR style ones in the future.

Wow, well remembered; and a very useful item - that should do the trick, though how easy will it be to mount them over - or in place of - the bases already there on the SECR ones?

[Bucoops]

23 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

Wow, well remembered; and a very useful item - that should do the trick, though how easy will it be to mount them over - or in place of - the bases already there on the SECR ones?

 

No idea! Will see when I get some but I will have to file back the tapered part to be squared off (oh for a mini lathe...). I remember now, I started making the little collar bits for these to make them look like extended ones for use with non-buckeye fitted stock. But the carpet monster swallowed at least one of them 😅

 

Like you mine came from Roxey, but looking at the catalogue the only other similar one is BR Mk1 but the head is a lot more oval.

Edited March 26, 2023 by Bucoops

[Chas Levin]

5 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

No idea! Will see when I get some but I will have to file back the tapered part to be squared off (oh for a mini lathe...). I remember now, I started making the little collar bits for these to make them look like extended ones for use with non-buckeye fitted stock. But the carpet monster swallowed at least one of them 😅

Well please post results when you've tried it, I'd be very interested to see, in case I want to do the same thing.

 

As to small lathes, I was looking earlier at pictures of the Proxxon ones (such as the FD150E and 250E), having read on another thread about someone using one. I thought I might get one eventually, when I (hopefully) have a larger work room. Although they're small, you still need a reasonable space, not just for the 1/2 by 1/4 metre footprint, but for elbow room and general clearances...

[Bucoops]

You also need skill! Even more so than the big lathe I used to attempt to drive, small stuff is even more fiddly...

[Chas Levin]

19 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

You also need skill! Even more so than the big lathe I used to attempt to drive, small stuff is even more fiddly...

Oh I'm sure, but learning how to use one would be very interesting I think...

[Jol Wilkinson]

I have a Unimat 3, with milling attachment. Although not regularly used, it was invaluable when I was more kit bashing or making  casting patterns. I haven't now used it for about four years, although the very odd occasion arises when I think it would be a good idea to  get it out of its box and set it up. Perhaps the time has come to put it on eBay!

 

Axminster offer a range of their own lathes, besides Proxxon. I would go for one with a cast iron bed, rather than aluminium. They may be of Chinese origin, but should be fairly good, although not all Far Eastern products are.

 

 

[Chas Levin]

3 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

I have a Unimat 3, with milling attachment. Although not regularly used, it was invaluable when I was more kit bashing or making  casting patterns. I haven't now used it for about four years, although the very odd occasion arises when I think it would be a good idea to  get it out of its box and set it up. Perhaps the time has come to put it on eBay!

 

Axminster offer a range of their own lathes, besides Proxxon. I would go for one with a cast iron bed, rather than aluminium. They may be of Chinese origin, but should be fairly good, although not all Far Eastern products are.

Thanks Jol, food for thought. It'll have to wait until we move though, which is on the cards, possibly as early as next year though probably not quite so quickly, at which point the plan is to have a larger railway room, one large enough to have a small sofa and TV at one end for the missus to inhabit while I work on things. My present room is a spare bedroom 2m by 2.2m: there's room to open the door with everything that's in there, but you have to shut it again to move round! Definitely insufficient room for a lathe...

[Chas Levin]

On 26/03/2023 at 17:16, Bucoops said:

Like you mine came from Roxey, but looking at the catalogue the only other similar one is BR Mk1 but the head is a lot more oval.

I also tried an LMS set (not at home right now to confirm which one) where only the front ones are oval, but as you say of the BR Mk 1, rather too oval and quite a bit too large... I have a Duchess kit to build one day though, so they may come in handy! 

[Bucoops]

I presume the Duchesses have oval buffers because of a long overhang at the front?

 

I always wondered why Gresley A1/A3s had spindly looking ones at the front with beefy ones at the back mind.

 

Wizard have dispatched that etch so hopefully will have it soon.

Edited March 27, 2023 by Bucoops

[Chas Levin]

2 hours ago, Bucoops said:

I presume the Duchesses have oval buffers because of a long overhang at the front?

 

I always wondered why Gresley A1/A3s had spindly looking ones at the front with beefy ones at the back mind.

I'm not sure about the reasons for either actually: I'll have a look at some pictures, interesting question...

[Asterix2012]

1 hour ago, Chas Levin said:

I'm not sure about the reasons for either actually: I'll have a look at some pictures, interesting question...

I don’t think the lner ones would be expected to work tender first to any extent that might be part of the reason

 

Indeed the NB atlantics carried only a single link or shackle at the front probably for the same reason.

[Chas Levin]

10 hours ago, Asterix2012 said:

I don’t think the lner ones would be expected to work tender first to any extent that might be part of the reason

 

Indeed the NB atlantics carried only a single link or shackle at the front probably for the same reason.

That's interesting: were there rules then, or at any rate habits or protocols, as to which locos did or didn't work tender first?

[MikeTrice]

14 hours ago, Bucoops said:

I always wondered why Gresley A1/A3s had spindly looking ones at the front with beefy ones at the back mind.

 

For some reason they are double sprung at the front as seen here on Green Arrow:

[Chas Levin]

1 minute ago, MikeTrice said:

For some reason they are double sprung at the front as seen here on Green Arrow:

Wow - never noticed that before! I'd guess they were trying out different systems from the point of view of smooth shock absorbtion? Going to the trouble of using them on the front would seem to suggest that tender first was being considered for the V2 then, as otherwise they wouldn't have been concerend to try them there, would they?

Do you know - in fact, are you saying - that they weren't double-sprung at the rear of the V2 then Mike?

[MikeTrice]

I don't believe so.

[Chas Levin]

1 hour ago, MikeTrice said:

I don't believe so.

Hm: the plot thickens. I wonder why they thought it worth doing at the front but not the back?

Might it be because most locos - certainly larger ones like a V2 - spent most of their forward-travelling time with stock coupled at the rear hauling, but where they did have stock coupled at the front, they'd have been pushing, i.e. still travelling loco first?

If so, that would seem to confirm @Asterix2012's comment that LNER locos didn't do a lot of tender-first miles...

[Asterix2012]

41 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

Hm: the plot thickens. I wonder why they thought it worth doing at the front but not the back?

Might it be because most locos - certainly larger ones like a V2 - spent most of their forward-travelling time with stock coupled at the rear hauling, but where they did have stock coupled at the front, they'd have been pushing, i.e. still travelling loco first?

If so, that would seem to confirm @Asterix2012's comment that LNER locos didn't do a lot of tender-first miles...

Based on what my father told me years ago from his experience as a driver and fireman working tender first was only done where turning facilities were not available 

 

Paradoxically pacifics and V2 were worked tender first from time to time on the Corstorphine branch in Edinburgh 

 

Tender first working is seen more often nowadays due to the loss of turning facilities, for example on the Mallaig line 

[Chas Levin]

2 hours ago, Asterix2012 said:

Based on what my father told me years ago from his experience as a driver and fireman working tender first was only done where turning facilities were not available 

 

Paradoxically pacifics and V2 were worked tender first from time to time on the Corstorphine branch in Edinburgh 

 

Tender first working is seen more often nowadays due to the loss of turning facilities, for example on the Mallaig line 

 

Interesting - and very logical; so the widespread mainline scale of LNER large loco usage, where turntables were common, meant that the larger locos seldom needed to run tender first. That also explains the far more common photos of smaller locos on branch lines running tender first, where there might have been a run-around loop but no 'table.

 

Now I think about this, it seems very obvious, but I hadn't put it together in my mind before...

[Compound2632]

25 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

That also explains the far more common photos of smaller locos on branch lines running tender first, where there might have been a run-around loop but no 'table.

 

There may well have been a turntable but by the time photography became common, it was so stiff with age that running tender-first was the least worst option.