East Barnet Joint Stock - a workbench

[Chas Levin]

5 hours ago, drmditch said:

 The 'frames' (acting like ribs) of the ship  can form a curved structure, which is inherently stronger than a straight one. (5)

 

I would suggest that the last one of these factors is also relevant to railway carriages, and such carriages were, presumably the earliest landbound large moving structures.

Perhaps it is significant that earliest (and small) carriages tended to have slab sides, and as they grew larger they tended to have 'tunblehome' and 'turnunder'

 

Very interesting post, thank you for adding the naval knowledge, not my usual area of expertise.

 

I'm quite struck with the quoted point above, that the extra strength was required as carriage sizes increased. I'd vaguely assumed that tumblehomes and turnunders were partly aesthetic, partly for loading gauge clearance and I hadn't thought about structural strength. That's a nice point, that the earlier smaller ones were straight sided and the curves came in with the increase in weight...

 

It's also interesting to think that railway carriages were presumably the earliest landbound large moving structures: I hadn't thought of that but you must be right. That must have been another aspect of why early railways caused such consternation - it wasn't just the speed of travel...

 

I don't know of any broadside armaments carried by railway carriages either, though of course some carried guns of similar sizes to naval ones...

 

Quote

Sorry for the distraction. I will now return to ensuring that the sides of the Covered Van I am constructing are definitely flat!

 

Absolutely no need to apologise, no distraction, it's all part of the conversation and thoroughly enjoyable!

Edited March 16, 2023 by Chas Levin

[MikeTrice]

3 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

Isn't the extruded aluminium quite thick to do this with though? Have you ever done it with aluminium Mike?

Yes, I have done it. The aluminium bends quite easily.

[micklner]

3 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

Nice job - I hadn't seen this particular one but I've seen others.

 

Isn't the extruded aluminium quite thick to do this with though? Have you ever done it with aluminium Mike?

The Aluminium Roof would a real pig to cut and try and bend too get it even close to that shape,  almost impossible  IMHO. Much simpler to Araldite MJT  ends onto  the Aluminium Roof.

 

     Personally I would us the Comet Roof with the ledge option "if" it actually fits between the  sides. Number One reason its then easy to then glue to the body  and it will not ever move and will support the sides. The Comet Roof et al maybe not perfect but near enough ( for me), sometimes the best option is the simpler one.

     My Nucast Sentinel is at least 20 or more like 30 years old .I have never noticed the roof shape in all that time !!. I dont remember any problems with fitting at all, perhaps mine is a early casting before the mould(s) became tired.

Edited March 16, 2023 by micklner

[Chas Levin]

2 hours ago, MikeTrice said:

Yes, I have done it. The aluminium bends quite easily.

 

2 hours ago, micklner said:

The Aluminium Roof would a real pig to cut and try and bend too get it even close to that shape,  almost impossible  IMHO. Much simpler to Araldite MJT  ends onto  the Aluminium Roof.

 

Gents, healthy debate is the engine of innovation. Sounds like something somebody famous might have said...

 

Well, not having tried it yet, I'm encouraged by your experience and confidence Mike, because my guess would have been that it would be very difficult - which is, of course why I asked.

 

I shall try it, in due course, and report back 🙂.

 

2 hours ago, micklner said:

Personally I would us the Comet Roof with the ledge option "if" it actually fits between the  sides. Number One reason its then easy to then glue to the body  and it will not ever move and will support the sides. The Comet Roof et al maybe not perfect but near enough ( for me), sometimes the best option is the simpler one.

 

Yes, I agree that one of the aluminium sides will be the best option, though I shall look at options other than glue, even araldite. I like a combination of permanence and the ability to dismantle, so a bolt together construction would be my preferred option.

 

2 hours ago, micklner said:

My Nucast Sentinel is at least 20 or more like 30 years old .I have never noticed the roof shape in all that time !!. I dont remember any problems with fitting at all, perhaps mine is a early casting before the mould(s) became tired.

 

I'm not surprised you've never noticed the roof shape Mick - it looks fine and perfectly natural (as do many similar ones that use the original roof) and only shows up if you go to the trouble of comparing it with the prototype: the difference is very slight. I hadn't noticed it either and I've been spending quite a lot of time looking at photos of the prototype and of various models made by others. Actually, it was looking at the roof shape of Miles Glenn's model - the one built from Worsley Works etches and used on their site as the illustrating photos for those etches - and asking him what he'd used that drew my attention to the differences in roof shape and had I not talked to him, I'd have gone ahead with the supplied one.

As to your not encountering any problems during the fitting, as I mentioned in a previous post earlier today, I think there must have been different batches at different times, produced to slightly different tolerances or finishes. You've only got to compare the photos on 34016's build thread (https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/176414-nu-cast-sentinel-steam-railcars-x-2/page/2/) of the roof he had with photos of the pieces I have now to see that either the mould got tired as you suggest, or there were some differences in the casting production process at times.

@34016 - do you know how old (or young) the castings were that you used in your recent build?

Edited March 16, 2023 by Chas Levin

[MikeTrice]

This may not help but lurking in a cabinet in the NRM store is this large scale model of a railcar:

[Chas Levin]

6 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

The meaning of tumblehome in naval architecture is all very well but to my mind, the question is, what terminology was used by the builders of road carriages of the 1820s? It was one such, Thomas Clarke Worsdell, who designed (over tea with George Stephenson) and built the first proper railway carriages, for the L&M.

I've been turning this over in my mind - though only as background processing as I haven't had a chance to do any research yet -  and found myself wondering: do we know when tumblehomes and turnunders started to be incorporated into railway carriage design, presumably as a modification to the earliest straight sides? That might give some clues as to the origins of the idea for railway use and into the terminology employed at that time...

I'll have a leaf through some early railway books over the weekend, though much of Saturday will be spent at the Ally Pally show!

[Jol Wilkinson]

Chas,

 

turn under largely seems to have been adopted first as carriages became wider but platforms stayed where they were.

 

Tumblehome was adopted, again as carriage width increased but was probably more dependant on the company's loading gauge. 

 

On the LNWR, turn under was built into 8ft and wider wider carriages but tumblehome wasn't, IIRC, introduced until carriage width increased to 9ft. The top of the carriage sides were  3" narrower at 8' 9". Carriage length may have also been a factor, length increasing as width did to provide more comfort and/or passenger capacity. So overhang increased, reducing clearances to some extent on curves. This may not have been an issue on running lines but could have been within stations

 

Regarding roof profiles, from a pragmatic view I would simply go for the nearest profile available, unless you want to commission/scratch build one that matches the prototype drawings and dimensions (if available). I doubt that, while you will be aware of the compromise, it won't be visually apparent.

 

Jol

[Chas Levin]

10 hours ago, MikeTrice said:

This may not help but lurking in a cabinet in the NRM store is this large scale model of a railcar:

Thanks Mike, that looks like a lovely model, doesn't it? It's interesting for two reason, firstly in confirming once again the shape of the roof, which looks to me exactly like the prototype and drawings in its degree of centre arc and also in the way the front corners are shaped.

Second, they've done a nice job of modelling the frames surrounding the two opening toplights in the centre and right-hand windows (as viewed from the front). Both those topligts are shown open in a very high proportion of prototype photos and I'd already decided to try and model them open on mine...

 

Also interesting to note how low profile the coal hatch is.

 

Looks like the roof's coming adrift a little, over the left-hand corner. Is the NRM store open to the public at the moment? Any idea who made it, or when, or from what drawings? Is the label legible in your original photo?

Edited March 17, 2023 by Chas Levin

[Chas Levin]

50 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Chas,

 

turn under largely seems to have been adopted first as carriages became wider but platforms stayed where they were.

 

Tumblehome was adopted, again as carriage width increased but was probably more dependant on the company's loading gauge. 

 

On the LNWR, turn under was built into 8ft and wider wider carriages but tumblehome wasn't, IIRC, introduced until carriage width increased to 9ft. The top of the carriage sides were  3" narrower at 8' 9". Carriage length may have also been a factor, length increasing as width did to provide more comfort and/or passenger capacity. So overhang increased, reducing clearances to some extent on curves. This may not have been an issue on running lines but could have been within stations

 

Regarding roof profiles, from a pragmatic view I would simply go for the nearest profile available, unless you want to commission/scratch build one that matches the prototype drawings and dimensions (if available). I doubt that, while you will be aware of the compromise, it won't be visually apparent.

 

Jol

Thanks Jol, very interesting - I shall try and find out similar history for the GNR.

 

One thing occurs to me though: carriages move around quite a bit in motion and I would have thought they'd move - on occasion, over less smooth track and at speed - through an arc of at least 3", so if that was a critical distance for clearing the loading gauge, were there ever incidents of cantrail scraping?

 

Interesting point about the dual increases of length and width being related; also that overhang may have been more of an issue in stations than on running lines...

 

Regarding roof profiles yes, fully agree: I think the aluminium pieces are still a compromise but a far, far coser one than any other option and I think they can be made to look very good with a little care - as of course Miles Glenn's model does.

[Chas Levin]

17 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

The meaning of tumblehome in naval architecture is all very well but to my mind, the question is, what terminology was used by the builders of road carriages of the 1820s? It was one such, Thomas Clarke Worsdell, who designed (over tea with George Stephenson) and built the first proper railway carriages, for the L&M.

Morning Stephen: it suddenly hit me this morning that I'd completely mis-read - or mis-digested - what you wrote there and missed the rather central point that you were talking about road carriages! I'm so used to thinking about railways I read 'through' what you wrote and immediately started thinking about the earliest railways carriages.

 

Attention To Detail.

 

I have quite a few books on early railways and I think one or two do discuss the influence of road carriages on early railway carriage design - I'll have a look...

[Compound2632]

41 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

One thing occurs to me though: carriages move around quite a bit in motion and I would have thought they'd move - on occasion, over less smooth track and at speed - through an arc of at least 3", so if that was a critical distance for clearing the loading gauge, were there ever incidents of cantrail scraping?

 

Not quite the dynamical issue you're asking about but it's the sort of thing that was being thought through, as here, from 1885:

 

 

[Embedded link to downloadable scan of Midland Railway Study Centre item 12408.]

 

There was clearance space between the maximum loading gauge and the minimum structure gauge.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Compound2632

[MikeTrice]

1 hour ago, Chas Levin said:

Is the NRM store open to the public at the moment? Any idea who made it, or when, or from what drawings? Is the label legible in your original photo?

The model is in a glass cabinet near the floor so not easy to photograph. The label is not readable on my photos but this one at least shows the museum's reference number:

https://www.deviantart.com/rlkitterman/art/1-16-LNER-Sentinel-Cammell-Steam-Railmotor-at-NRM-790380223

 

As far as I am aware the stoe in unaffected by the rebuilding works so should still be accessible to the public. Note the model does not appear to be lined.

[Chas Levin]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Not quite the dynamical issue you're asking about but it's the sort of thing that was being thought through, as here, from 1885:

 

 

[Embedded link to downloadable scan of Midland Railway Study Centre item 12408.]

 

There was clearance space between the maximum loading gauge and the minimum structure gauge.

That is fascinating Stephen, thanks for posting. It hadn't occurred to me that they'd have been looking at that, but of course that's a silly assumption on my part because you'd have to take that sort of clearance issue into account when building railway infrastructure!

Wonderful looking drawing too, so evocative of the times, and of Victorian railways...

[Chas Levin]

1 hour ago, MikeTrice said:

The model is in a glass cabinet near the floor so not easy to photograph. The label is not readable on my photos but this one at least shows the museum's reference number:

https://www.deviantart.com/rlkitterman/art/1-16-LNER-Sentinel-Cammell-Steam-Railmotor-at-NRM-790380223

 

As far as I am aware the stoe in unaffected by the rebuilding works so should still be accessible to the public. Note the model does not appear to be lined.

Thanks Mike; I hope to be visiting York again soon as I'll try and have a look. The photo from that link also shows buffers the same shape as in most of the prototype photos where you can see them (and as supplied in the Nu-Cast kit) even though Isinglass shows what I think are round base ones.

 

I had noticed that the model isn't lined, but I learned in the course of the discussions about the lining of these vehicles that it's something many believe wasn't done and that it's also something many avoid doing, so I wasn't surprised about this model and I assumed it was unlined for one - or possibly both - of those reasons...

[34016]

17 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

 

 

Gents, healthy debate is the engine of innovation. Sounds like something somebody famous might have said...

 

Well, not having tried it yet, I'm encouraged by your experience and confidence Mike, because my guess would have been that it would be very difficult - which is, of course why I asked.

 

I shall try it, in due course, and report back 🙂.

 

 

Yes, I agree that one of the aluminium sides will be the best option, though I shall look at options other than glue, even araldite. I like a combination of permanence and the ability to dismantle, so a bolt together construction would be my preferred option.

 

 

I'm not surprised you've never noticed the roof shape Mick - it looks fine and perfectly natural (as do many similar ones that use the original roof) and only shows up if you go to the trouble of comparing it with the prototype: the difference is very slight. I hadn't noticed it either and I've been spending quite a lot of time looking at photos of the prototype and of various models made by others. Actually, it was looking at the roof shape of Miles Glenn's model - the one built from Worsley Works etches and used on their site as the illustrating photos for those etches - and asking him what he'd used that drew my attention to the differences in roof shape and had I not talked to him, I'd have gone ahead with the supplied one.

As to your not encountering any problems during the fitting, as I mentioned in a previous post earlier today, I think there must have been different batches at different times, produced to slightly different tolerances or finishes. You've only got to compare the photos on 34016's build thread (https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/176414-nu-cast-sentinel-steam-railcars-x-2/page/2/) of the roof he had with photos of the pieces I have now to see that either the mould got tired as you suggest, or there were some differences in the casting production process at times.

@34016 - do you know how old (or young) the castings were that you used in your recent build?

Hi Chas, One of the kits was fairly recent and the other older. The later roof was a bit thinner and the overall weights of both seem to reflect this - 396g & 425g

[Chas Levin]

1 hour ago, 34016 said:

Hi Chas, One of the kits was fairly recent and the other older. The later roof was a bit thinner and the overall weights of both seem to reflect this - 396g & 425g

Thanks, very interesting, especially that the later roof was thinner!

 

Which roof is the one shown being built in your thread though, the early one or the later one? I'm just curious because it looks to have had a much better - in the sense of smoother, with far fewer fault and holes - than the one I have, so I wonder whether yours is earlier (when the moulds were in better condition as Mick suggested) or whether mine was just from a less finely finished batch...

 

Edited, because I went back and re-checked your build thread and realised that you do show both vehicles' roofs, and they both have rather better surfaces than mine does!

No problem - it looks like I'll be using an aluminium one anyway.

I noted though that - if I've read it correctly - that the roof you used on the first one fitted Ok and it was the second one that was the wrong width for the body? So that would seem to confirm that Nu-Cast roofs wre a little variable in those days...

Edited March 17, 2023 by Chas Levin

[Chas Levin]

Well, on a quick preliminary look through some early railway books and online, I'm interested to learn that turnunders at any rate were on railway carriages surprisingly early - the famous Liverpool & Manchester 1830s yellow stock had them for instance, something I hadn't consciously noticed before:

 

 

The third class open ones were apparently straight sided though, which I'm guessing was to do with economy of construction.

 

Here's an only slightly later example of a turnunder, a Stockton & Darlington from 1847, lovely looking vehicle:

 

 

Too me, this does look as if it was to do with trying to achieve a balance between platform clearance at the solebar level, while maximising passenger cabin - and therefore seating - width higher up the body.

 

I know this is still not about early road vehicles, but we were also considering the question of when curved sides started to be used on railway carriages.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Chas Levin said:

Too me, this does look as if it was to do with trying to achieve a balance between platform clearance at the solebar level, while maximising passenger cabin - and therefore seating - width higher up the body.

 

Remember that early platforms were low - the S&D carriage is at its widest at the lower footboards. The position of the axle journals is the detemining factor in the width of the carriage, since that set the frame / solebar centres. These early carriages are not built with any overhang of the body at floor level, so turnunder gives a bit more width at seat level. But it may just be elegant design, carried over from what was customary for road carriages.

[Chas Levin]

8 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Remember that early platforms were low - the S&D carriage is at its widest at the lower footboards. The position of the axle journals is the detemining factor in the width of the carriage, since that set the frame / solebar centres. These early carriages are not built with any overhang of the body at floor level, so turnunder gives a bit more width at seat level. But it may just be elegant design, carried over from what was customary for road carriages.

Yes, I thought about the position of the platform relative to the footboards as I looked at the picture - I imagined people stepping down off the footboards and onto the platform, even if only a small step down; that must have meant low platforms.

And it did also occur to me that what we're considering as a clearance turnunder might just be aesthetic - it is undeniably elegant, as you say...

[Chas Levin]

From further reading, it seems that turnunders weren't just being seen in the UK in the 1830s - here's a picture of a couple of coaches of similar vintage from what's now Germany (behind the 1835 Adler, seen here restored and running in 1963-4 but as far as I can ascertain with their basic shapes unaltered) with a similar feature:

 

 

And on the subject of Continental loading gauges and the popularity of double-decker coaches, that's clearly not a new thing either - here's a rather nice photo of the first French compound, Anglet, built in 1876, seen at Biarritz on the Bayonne-Anglet-Biarritz Railway, undated but I'd guess from the clothing that it's probably not far after the build date of the loco:

 

 

[Chas Levin]

A very enjoyble few hours yesterday spent at the Ally Pally National Festival of Railways Modelling show, where - amongst other bits and pieces - I picked up a Fox bogie kit; does anyone know anything about the maker, the date or the rest of the range? The white-metal castings look very crisp and nicely detailed...

 

 

 

Pleased to see what I think could be a railcar - and even possibly a Sentinel-Cammell one - as part of the packaging design:

 

[Chas Levin]

I think I've found some suitable buffers for the Sentinel railcar - or at any rate, suitably shaped buffer heads - I want to use brass or steel ones to replace the white-metal ones form the kit. I picked up a couple of different types at the recent Ally Pally fair and also ordered some others, all of which looked possible, but there was no way to be sure without having them to examine, measure and compare with drawings. After a prolonged and careful selection process (not really, it was fairly obvious several sets were completely unsuitable!) a Markits set of SECR clipped oval coach buffers seem to be a pretty close match - a somewhat incongruous choice in terms of railway company perhaps, but see what you think:

 

 

Here are a couple more photos of them against the Isinglass drawing, aligned so as to compare different measurements:

 

 

 

The width and length dimensions of the heads are nearly spot on, sitting between the Nu-Cast white-metal ones and the Isinglass drawing: Nu-Cast 6.3x3.8mm; Isinglass 6.3x4.4mm; Markits 6.45x4.25. The depth isn't quite such a good match. The prototypes have slightly convex faces whereas the Markits ones are pretty much flat, but you only see that if you look at them straight down or straight from the side (which will rarely happen in use) and I think their appearance from the front is more important. And for what it's worth, the Nu-Cast white-metal ones have flat faces too...

 

From the front, the shape is very close. The 'shoulders' are a little less sloped (or a little more square, to put it another way) than on the prototype - but the difference is slight and again, in use, I don't think it will show.

 

After comparing measurements I compared them with some of the photos in Yeadon and tried to photograph the comparisons, but of course it's difficult to replicate what the eye sees, because the perspective of the photos compared to the buffer placed on top of them is very different and while in real life our eyes ignore that and our brains match the two when we know we're trying to compare them, the camera just records what it sees. Here are a couple of attempts though, just for interest:

 

 

 

The next thing is to work out the best way of replicating the prototype's tapered, straight-sided buffer bases. The choice I think is between drilling out the white-metal ones (not keen, fiddly, possibly weakened final structure, no spares in case of accidents), fabricating new bases, perhaps from brass bar (more appealing, but drilling out holes that replicate the slightly squared off holes in the Markits bodies that prevent the heads rotating would be a challenge) or somehow modifying the Markits SECR bases to look right (possibly the best option - I'm thinking about adding material, perhaps wrapping around with brass strip, bar and/or wire, soldering to fill the gaps and then filing back...). Here are the two buffers as they stand and if anyone has any ideas please let me know your thoughts:

 

Edited March 26, 2023 by Chas Levin

[WFPettigrew]

11 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

please let me know your thoughts

 

Being lazy and not trawling back through the thread - but the whitemetal buffers do look to have a decided curve on them - as though they were designed to sit on a curved or angled headstock, rather than the square base buffer you have from Markits?   

But whether or not that is right, or just the w-m ones are skew-whiff, it strikes me you only need to box in the tops and sides, not the bottom.  And that it appears from the last photo you will need  to file off some of that cylindrical section if you were to be fitting a brass overlay, otherwise it would be too wide/high?

 

If that's the case, then why not file a flat for the two sides, and solder on offcuts of brass to make the two sides.  It would likely then be simpler to then use filler to create the top surface (rather than trying to get a third piece of brass to be exactly the right size and to solder that to both the existing buffer and to the two bits of brass you've put on the sides)? 

Perhaps an even more elegant version of the above would be to create a single piece of brass overlay, folded to form both sides and also the "front" end profile of the buffer housing (which does if the NuCast one is to be believed project a bit further towards the buffer head?) and that could then be soldered in place with filler added.  This would have the advantage not only of ensuring the correct housing length, if needed, but also giving you the equivalent of shuttering all round to guide the filler?

 

Clearly if there needs to be an angle on the base, that could be created as well with some shim?

 

Hope this helps.

 

All the best

 

Neil 

[Bucoops]

11 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

I think I've found some suitable buffers for the Sentinel railcar - or at any rate, suitably shaped buffer heads - I want to use brass or steel ones to replace the white-metal ones form the kit. I picked up a couple of different types at the recent Ally Pally fair and also ordered some others, all of which looked possible, but there was no way to be sure without having them to examine, measure and compare with drawings. After a prolonged and careful selection process (not really, it was fairly obvious several sets were completely unsuitable!) a Markits set of SECR clipped oval coach buffers seem to be a pretty close match - a somewhat incongruous choice in terms of railway company perhaps, but see what you think:

 

 

Here are a couple more photos of them against the Isinglass drawing, aligned so as to compare different measurements:

 

 

 

The width and length dimensions of the heads are nearly spot on, sitting between the Nu-Cast white-metal ones and the Isinglass drawing: Nu-Cast 6.3x3.8mm; Isinglass 6.3x4.4mm; Markits 6.45x4.25. The depth isn't quite such a good match. The prototypes have slightly convex faces whereas the Markits ones are pretty much flat, but you only see that if you look at them straight down or straight from the side (which will rarely happen in use) and I think their appearance from the front is more important. And for what it's worth, the Nu-Cast white-metal ones have flat faces too...

 

From the front, the shape is very close. The 'shoulders' are a little less sloped (or a little more square, to put it another way) than on the prototype - but the difference is slight and again, in use, I don't think it will show.

 

After comparing measurements I compared them with some of the photos in Yeadon and tried to photograph the comparisons, but of course it's difficult to replicate what the eye sees, because the perspective of the photos compared to the buffer placed on top of them is very different and while in real life our eyes ignore that and our brains match the two when we know we're trying to compare them, the camera just records what it sees. Here are a couple of attempts though, just for interest:

 

 

 

The next thing is to work out the best way of replicating the prototype's tapered, straight-sided buffer bases. The choice I think is between drilling out the white-metal ones (not keen, fiddly, possibly weakened final structure, no spares in case of accidents), fabricating new bases, perhaps from brass bar (more appealing, but drilling out holes that replicate the slightly squared off holes in the Markits bodies that prevent the heads rotating would be a challenge) or somehow modifying the Markits SECR bases to look right (possibly the best option - I'm thinking about adding material, perhaps wrapping around with brass strip, bar and/or wire, soldering to fill the gaps and then filing back...). Here are the two buffers as they stand and if anyone has any ideas please let me know your thoughts:

 

 

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

 

 

[Chas Levin]

4 hours ago, WFPettigrew said:

 

Being lazy and not trawling back through the thread - but the whitemetal buffers do look to have a decided curve on them - as though they were designed to sit on a curved or angled headstock, rather than the square base buffer you have from Markits?   

But whether or not that is right, or just the w-m ones are skew-whiff, it strikes me you only need to box in the tops and sides, not the bottom.  And that it appears from the last photo you will need  to file off some of that cylindrical section if you were to be fitting a brass overlay, otherwise it would be too wide/high?

 

If that's the case, then why not file a flat for the two sides, and solder on offcuts of brass to make the two sides.  It would likely then be simpler to then use filler to create the top surface (rather than trying to get a third piece of brass to be exactly the right size and to solder that to both the existing buffer and to the two bits of brass you've put on the sides)? 

Perhaps an even more elegant version of the above would be to create a single piece of brass overlay, folded to form both sides and also the "front" end profile of the buffer housing (which does if the NuCast one is to be believed project a bit further towards the buffer head?) and that could then be soldered in place with filler added.  This would have the advantage not only of ensuring the correct housing length, if needed, but also giving you the equivalent of shuttering all round to guide the filler?

 

Clearly if there needs to be an angle on the base, that could be created as well with some shim?

 

Hope this helps.

 

All the best

 

Neil 

Thanks Neil, very interesting and yes, very helpful!

 

Firstly, I think the apparent curve on the WM ones is simply where the thinnest part of the shaft has bent, allowing the heads to sit at an angle. Of the four, to show this, two don't and it was accidental on my part to have used one of those that isn't straight.

 

Your main suggestion though is definitely very helpful and surely a much better iead than mine, which mainly consisted of cladding the brass housing in far too much excess brass and solder and then filing it down: rather a bodge I'd now say, compared to what you're suggesting!

 

In addition, my idea would have made producing four identical housings more difficult and time consuming, where your suggestion would make duplication much easier, as I'd start by cutting four identical overlays (I'm going here with your second iteration, the 'more elegant' version, using a single piece of overlay for the sides plus the front).

 

I wonder whether it might be possible to take it a stage further, and produce overlays that folded up to clad the front, the sides and the top? As you say, the underside could be left, though it might be just as easy to fill with solder and file back.

It would even need to be thick brass either, as it would need no structural strength and the inner (tiny) void would be filled with solder or filler anyway...

 

I'll have to try drawing a shape for a fold-up, not something I've ever tried before but an interesting challenge: thanks again Neil!