Tom F Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Sadly another error, though maybe not actually a design error. The cab's vertical handrails are protroding through the ends of the knobs. Why? Can't say I've ever seen that arrangement on Great Western engines, but I stand to be corrected. That's going to have to be corrected when I get mine! Take some small Xurons, take excess wire above and below....snip. Simples 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coppercap Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Take some small Xurons, take excess wire above and below....snip. Simples But it should have been correct in the first place! No photo or drawing would have shown the handrails like they have been produced on the models. It couldn't have been that difficult to get them right - its not as if any major retooling would have been needed to put it right. As you say, 'simples' for me to do, but that also goes for the manufacturer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted December 13, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 13, 2016 How common was packing of buffer stocks? 14xx-packed-buffer-stocks.png Quite common, if you do a headstock repair around the drawhook. The square riveted plate around the hook pushes the hook out by whatever thickness the repair is. This introduces a slackness in the coupling, that the links cant take up. The usual way around this is to pack out the buffers by the same amount. It's mostly a Western repair, as the GW usually had this sorted when shopping the loco in question. Ian. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted December 13, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 13, 2016 But it should have been correct in the first place! No photo or drawing would have shown the handrails like they have been produced on the models. It couldn't have been that difficult to get them right - its not as if any major retooling would have been needed to put it right. As you say, 'simples' for me to do, but that also goes for the manufacturer. If you've ever worked on a die tool, you might want to review that statement. I know, I have.... Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) It's mostly a Western repair, as the GW usually had this sorted when shopping the loco in question. Here's 4805 when new out of the shops: (edit: please note, this is not a 'packed' bufferstock plate) Btw, thanks for the 1464 explanation - I guessed it was a 'drilling the wrong place' sort of situation. Edited December 15, 2016 by Miss Prism 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted December 13, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) Here's 4805 when new out of the shops: 4805-buffer-packing.jpg Btw, thanks for the 1464 explanation - I guessed it was a 'drilling the wrong place' sort of situation. It normally depends on what level of repair. My mistake! I would doubt that the photo you depict is a brand-new loco. If it is, then someone's nicked the headstock off an older locomotive. Edit. That looks like a major repair. I think I'm looking at packing portions that extend past the buffers, and conform to the outer contours of the headstock. There is a shadow on your photo (left) which shows up a plate before we get to the vacuum & other pipes. No discernable packers on the buffers themselves. Edited December 13, 2016 by tomparryharry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerrySVR Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Email from Hattons yesterday (Sunday) saying delivery could be Jan or Feb 2017 but not guaranteed depends on manufacturer. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coppercap Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 If you've ever worked on a die tool, you might want to review that statement. I know, I have.... Ian It's the handrail, not some major moulding that's come out of some expensive-to-alter tool. The wire was cut too long, and no obvious reason why. Why should I buy a model with 'detail' that none of the prototypes ever carried, to the have to meddle with it to get it looking somewhere near right? They've gone to the extent of fitting nice detail like the little hook on the buffer beam to hang the coupling on, yet they get handrails wrong! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted December 13, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 13, 2016 It's the handrail, not some major moulding that's come out of some expensive-to-alter tool. The wire was cut too long, and no obvious reason why. Why should I buy a model with 'detail' that none of the prototypes ever carried, to the have to meddle with it to get it looking somewhere near right? They've gone to the extent of fitting nice detail like the little hook on the buffer beam to hang the coupling on, yet they get handrails wrong! The photo's I've seen give the full effect of a 48xx. If I need to slightly alter the appearance of the loco, so be it. At some point, I've got to take the cab apart, to get either Messrs Harwood or Gilks at the controls.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 No discernable packers on the buffers themselves. Yes, you're right. The reflections are deceptive on the shiny paintwork. (The pic is of the brand-new 1932 loco, btw, with the original 'leaning inward' front steps.) And painted safety valve cover... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coppercap Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 The photo's I've seen give the full effect of a 48xx.... So did the Airfix model all those years ago (and they got the cab handrails right too). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted December 13, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 13, 2016 Yes, you're right. The reflections are deceptive on the shiny paintwork. (The pic is of the brand-new 1932 loco, btw, with the original 'leaning inward' front steps.) And painted safety valve cover... You can never really get all of the history behind a photo. Unless it's written on the back, or notes, you're in the dark. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) But it should have been correct in the first place! No photo or drawing would have shown the handrails like they have been produced on the models. It couldn't have been that difficult to get them right - its not as if any major retooling would have been needed to put it right. As you say, 'simples' for me to do, but that also goes for the manufacturer. d'oh! Edited December 13, 2016 by coachmann 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted December 13, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 13, 2016 So did the Airfix model all those years ago (and they got the cab handrails right too). I was going to write something witty here, but I can't be bothered. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) Hi all, To cover a few points that have been discussed over the last few days. Bunker steps. Contrary to what has been discussed, it would have been a lot more than 'another cab side' to include these. The tooling currently has four different cabs to accommodate differences with top feed connections etc and another two (at least, depending on which locomotives you choose) to accomodate the 'as built' version. During the R&D stage we discussed the inclusion and omission of a number of detail options (including some of the others highlighted above) however once tooling options are added the production cost shoots up dramatically and we have to make a decision on what to include. With bunker-fitted steps fitted to examples of all the liveries we wanted to portray, we chose to not include a stepless model to reduce the production cost and therefore retail cost. As said a few months back, in a perfect world we'd personally love to create every minor variation and example in every project we do but we have to balance our modeller heads with commercial heads, although we do understand that this can cause some disappointment. For reference, we didn't laser scan the 14xx. Our research has involved (but not limited to!) a full measurement and photo survey of No.1466 at Didcot with contributions from the three other surviving locomotives, as well as drawings and hundreds of archive photographs and not forgetting the contributions made by users on here (and 3rd party support elsewhere). As a volunteer on a heritage railway vehicle restoration myself, we're aware of the various pitfalls that can be in place with works modifications, unofficial 'bodges' and post-preservation amendments which can individualise pretty much every loco, coach or wagon of the same type so we're eagle eyed on watching out for such occurrences. Regarding release, we've had confirmation that the first two should leave China on Friday and will be air freighted to the UK which should take around a week. These releases will be H1404 and H1409. The remaining models will then arrive with us in two batches early in the New Year and as soon as dates arrive, I'll ensure they're available on here. The first batch will be the remaining clean locomotives, with the weathered examples following these. Ahead of the main batch, we've had a couple of the production run of the first two locos sent through, which are currently clocking up the miles on my desktop rolling road - but not before putting them through our photo studio... Cheers, Dave H1404_H1409_2.jpg H1404_H1409_4.jpg H1404_H1409_5.jpg H1404_H1409_6.jpg H1409_autocoach.jpg Only a humble 1930s modeller, but I don't believe that it was only the 'as built' condition locos that ran with ash pans!?! Edited December 13, 2016 by Edwardian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Here's 4805 when new out of the shops: 4805-buffer-packing.jpg Btw, thanks for the 1464 explanation - I guessed it was a 'drilling the wrong place' sort of situation. Miss P, Your picture shows both a raised plate for the coupling hook and packing behind the buffers on a 4800 series. These seem to be common features on the 4800s. Could it be that these features are associated with the auto-gear and the need for further clearance? If so, they would logically not be needed on the 5800 series, and there is a picture below of 5813, with a flush coupling mounting and an absence of extra packing behind the buffers. Hattons' 5800 seems to have the extra packaging, so, possibly, this is wrong, but the issue warrants further investigation, as it may simply be a question of variation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porcy Mane Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) Miss P, Your picture shows both a raised plate for the coupling hook and packing behind the buffers on a 4800 series. These seem to be common features on the 4800s. Could it be that these features are associated with the auto-gear and the need for further clearance? If so, they would logically not be needed on the 5800 series, and there is a picture below of 5813, with a flush coupling mounting and an absence of extra packing behind the buffers. Hattons' 5800 seems to have the extra packaging, so, possibly, this is wrong, but the issue warrants further investigation, as it may simply be a question of variation. Crikey. I didn't realise The Mysterons had a liking for the GWR. They must model in OO. (Groan) Edited December 13, 2016 by Porcy Mane Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Crikey. I didn't realise The Mysterons had a liking for the GWR. They must model in OO. (Groan) Get your coat .... ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted December 13, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 13, 2016 Miss P, Your picture shows both a raised plate for the coupling hook and packing behind the buffers on a 4800 series. These seem to be common features on the 4800s. Could it be that these features are associated with the auto-gear and the need for further clearance? If so, they would logically not be needed on the 5800 series, and there is a picture below of 5813, with a flush coupling mounting and an absence of extra packing behind the buffers. Hattons' 5800 seems to have the extra packaging, so, possibly, this is wrong, but the issue warrants further investigation, as it may simply be a question of variation. I should point out that packing buffers is down to a number of factors. The distance relationship between coupling hook & buffer face is key in determining whether packing out either hook or buffer is undertaken. Firstly, is the packing out of the coupling hook. As we've discussed earlier, if the hook goes forward, then most likely the buffers will follow suit. Second, the buffer shank on the rolling stock might be short, so the shed will introduce packers on the loco to compensate. If it gets reported on a drivers log sheet, then the shed staff will look at it. Short buffers on a train will introduce a hammering effect, as the stock careers, then snatches on the drawhook. It's a very uncomfortable ride for both passenger & loco crew. This style of buffer is self contained, so it's a relatively easy job to drop a buffer, replace the holding studs with a longer set, and put the plates & buffers back on. It also follows that the bunker headstock might be original, and the smokebox end modified. Also, that modification might be around the other way..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) Miss P, Your picture shows both a raised plate for the coupling hook and packing behind the buffers on a 4800 series. No (for the latter). It was a trick of the light. See #839. All locos were fitted with drawhook plates. (It's side is hidden by the steampipe in your 5813 pic.) Edited December 13, 2016 by Miss Prism Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porcy Mane Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) Get your coat .... ! Red Scarlet, green or black? Captain. Sorry. Edited December 13, 2016 by Porcy Mane Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) Second, the buffer shank on the rolling stock might be short, Yes, I think that is the key. It's perhaps more appropriate in another thread, but I'm currently trying to track down, for non-autocoach buffers and non-NPCS buffers, when the GWR 'standard' (ahem!) coach buffer length changed from 2' 0.5" to 1'10.5". (An early Churchward-ism, I suspect.) Edited December 13, 2016 by Miss Prism Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted December 13, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 13, 2016 So, that's the buffers & hooks done to death. Now, off to find that Chinese toolmaker who left the nibs on top of the handrails. Off with his head, I say! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted December 13, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 13, 2016 Yes, I think that is the key. It's perhaps more appropriate in another thread, but I'm currently trying to track down, for non-autocoach buffers and non-NPCS buffers, when the GWR 'standard' (ahem!) coach buffer length changed from 2' 0.5" to 1'10.5". (An early Churchward-ism, I suspect.) Might be because of pre-grouping stock. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Might be because of pre-grouping stock. Undoubtedly. As the older 4-wheelers bit the dust in the early-30s, loco buffer-packing increased. Which reminds me, I'm fairly certain a 48xx worked the Malmesbury branch with a new Bristol Division B-set from 1933. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now