Miss Prism

Neal - there were no non-corridor 3rds, either short or long. edit: sorry, yes there was one, the C37 48' for the Mainline & City sets The standard 4-car non-corridor set, e.g. a Birmingham 'B set' (and whatever it was called in the London district), for short or long vehicles, was 2 brake 3rds sandwiching 2 composites. 'Bars 2' panelled (D49 + E89): http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrls887.htm http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrms1730.htm Later steel-sided multibars (D67 + E103): http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrbsh1751.htm http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrbsh2538.htm and 70' footers (D55 + E97) in colour!: http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrls201.htm

Thanks, but I was asking about the flange width of the big girders (the 7' ones).

Neal - the C25 wasn't a Toplight. I think it originated as a Dean (clerestory) design, but ended up getting built with an elliptical roof.

On the main side girders, what is the width of the I ?

Nice ratio.

What is your girder length and height?

There have been attempts at the axle-mounted motors approach (google 'Railflyer' for a recently-failed historical example), but you've listed most of the pitfalls, which are very significant. The micro motors have extremely small torque, the associated geartrains occupy a lot of space and require precision engineering, and there needs to be a boxfull of expensive control electronics to attempt to synchronise the motor rotations. For low-power underfloor applications like a DMU, small motors have a good application, but motor shafts need to be mechanically ganged to each other to synchronise the shaft speeds where more than one motor is used. For larger locos, the multi-motor approach becomes needlessly expensive.

The setts are very impressive. What did you use to scribe them?

Is this PVA merely a sealant on the plywood, or an initial rippling sea effect? (Love the wooden decking, btw.)

Yes, Slaters. Lovely kit. Now lost in the Coopercraft black hole.

Hi Rich - it's always advisable to have breaks in the switch rails before the vees, and to bond the switch rails to their adjacent stock rails. This provides two functions: - the switch blades are always powered even in the absence of a reliable metallic contact between blade and stock rail; - it ensures that a short is not developed at the vee in the event of the rear of wheel flanges making contact with open blades. These rail breaks are conveniently made at the place where the prototype has a fishplate. For crossovers, two extra breaks are required to seperate feeds (as you are already planning): Again, the breaks are conveniently made at prototype fishplate locations.

Thanks, Howard - I had forgotten that bit! (And yes, the mistake in the diagram is rather obvious.) I guess the 'coupling/gangway' issue casts a period caveat on the usual 'GWR = ragbag of any coaches' notion.

When were the buckeyes removed?

I can't decipher the scribble on the AA3 GA, but I think the chimney diameter was between 4" and 4.25" diameter.

The gangway situation is complex, and I don't pretend to know much about it, but the H26, along with the rest of the South Wales stock, was initially fitted with Pullman gangways. (As well as Laycock buckeyes.) They might have kept those Pullman gangways. 'Gangway adaptors' were fitted later (late '30s) to some other general-purpose 'suspended gangway' stock to facilitate interworking with the Pullman type and non-GWR stock.

There are approximately three zillion RMweb threads on that subject.

Yes, Don. The fact that it is still available in 7mm makes the 4mm situation even more galling!

With so many thousands of D299s built, it's a shame the Slaters kit is no longer available (tied up in the silliness of the Coopercraft situation).

What's happened to the characteristic GWR piston valve phut-phut when the regulator isn't open?

It's the later single volume.

http://spellerweb.net/rhindex/UKRH/GreatWestern/Narrowgauge/BadmintonStn.jpg

Figures 353 and 355 of the bible show the shortie bangers. I can't recall seeing them on a drawing, though.

A quick sloshing of solvent on the surface of brick paper is the best way to secure to plasticard. (Assuming the printing is relatively immune to the solvent.)

That's unusually devious of you, Mikkel, but I like it.

Agreed in respect of the coaches, which need larger and more expensive bolsters to run on. But I would think the existing CC wagons, along with the Slaters' PO wagons, would still be a viable prospect.