HowardGWR

Aha! (to both replies). Yes the MJT type shanks are 'well thin', aren't they, even for round shanks? At least the Slaters system ones preserve that prototype emulation of both shape and operation. I'm prompted to ponder what radius of curve demands buffer springing, or whether one could get away with fixed buffers but a very small gap between two coaches' buffers. I'm thinking 4 foot minimum curves here.

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.

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?

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?

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. )

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?

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.

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?

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.

The 6 wheeler solebar looks too deep possibly? Imagine that more enveloped by the body and then it all seems to match up better. Just my impression from the photo.

I think this business about the painting and lining reminds me about a contribution I read when reading a thread about the differences between wood, white metal, brass, plastic, etc regarding achievable accuracy in models. This person wrote that one does not see the underlying material on a model: one only sees the paintwork. I don't despair about my inabilities as a modeller. I have given up more than once over the 30 years and this current session is just to have a go at something I've not properly tried previously - coaches. I recognise that if the painting is no good, then the model isn't any good either. I don't worry about it though. I just feel good that I am having a go. I've just broken three drill bits on my Project 2, drilling the holes in the Comet aluminium roof. That alone is making that project an expensive do - not what was the plan at all. Plastic RTR is more forgiving! I'm going to get that Halfords Peugeot Noir Tony (Prometheus). Thanks for your reply.

Question to Prometheus (thinking right back to the posts at the start of the topic). I confessed then, that I can't paint and don't know how to use a spray*, although I have a cheap spray gun equipment that I stare at occasionally. So I will have to persevere with brush until it defeats me, unless of course it doesn't. Thanks to Lofty1966 for tips so I may have a go. I've bought Railmatch GWR cream and GWR Brown (both acrylic) and am experimenting. The cream looks very good when applied. So does their brown but it is a touch lighter than Hornby's which is rather dark chocolatey in my eyes. I remembered one of your posts writing that you added some purple or something. If one wanted to match the new Hornby models, for which Hornby has used the same dark colour as they used for the Railroads, what would you do with the Railmatch? Does adding black or purple do it, or is the Railmatch spot on and Hornby just wrong? What are views on the available colours? The Railmatch GWR brown looks nearer to what I remember, but what of course I remember are Mark 1s done up under the orders of Mr Hanks, the GM of BR WR, although I am sure Swindon knew what to do. They may have used BR cream but there is not much difference in that one anyway, if any. * Naturally though, I can use a commercial spray gun version of a colour, ready made. I didn't like the look of that Rover brown that is recommended elsewhere on RMWeb postings..

Just a follow-up on my 'stepboard' piece. I am sure it may have occurred to you that another way of dealing with it is just to leave the present Railroad underframe alone and arrange for the underframe to sit a little higher within the body of the coach. Then take a long strip of 0;75 plasticard and stick that under the step board to represent the extra solebar height. That way, you get the same result, with about 6 to 6 1/2 scale inches above the step board and 2 1/2 to 3 scale inches below it. However, one then would have to take account of other measurements in attaching the underframe to the coach body,, such as the headstock (buffer beam in modeller speak) and height of bogie fixing (see Taz's blog). It depends how much surgery has been carried out on the Railroad underframe (chassis in modeller speak?). Writing of modeller terminology, reminds me that, reading the latest GWS Echo newsletter, they were talking of 'a new set of handrail knobs' being made for 2999, so we don't have to be too shy about our terminology! They'll be fitting plasticard cosmetic Holcroft footplate curves to her next!

A quick update on my projects. These by the way are for my forthcoming book, called 'Coarse Railway Modelling'. Some of you may remember that series on amateur sports ('Coarse Rugby', Coarse Cricket', etc), that were very amusing. On project 1 (correcting Railroad faults just using a file and spare plasticard), I have now completed the solebar changes. Here is a photo comparison between the railroad and my effort. A recap: I sawed off the railroad step boards that are incorrectly positioned at the base of the solebar. That's quite easy because you just let the saw follow the side of the solebar. I then filed the side flush. The Hornby tiny mouldings representing step board attachments are lost, but they are inadequate, anyway. Look at the new Hornby one if you want to be impressed. Those also are frankly not seen except with a magnifying glass. I then took a strip of plasticard 1.5 mm wide that was 25 cm long, so long enough to make the continuous step board and spot-superglued an end at right angles to the solebar about 0.8 mm from the bottom. I did that by eye and using a mark I made in the plastic, where it had to go, I then stretched the strip to the other end very tautly and spot-glued that similarly. The extra was then snipped off. Although taut, it will of course sag, and in any case one could not leave it loose (!). I took a very long thin strip of plasticard 0.75 mm wide and stuck that all along under the step board so that the latter rested on that. I then applied superglue sparingly in dabs all along the underneath of the step board at the join, to ensure all remained secure and level. Of course no one would ever notice the difference in width between the upper solebar and that under the step board. It's too tiny a difference. Since I did this, I realise it might have been easier to reverse the process, sticking the underneath strip on first and the step board second. I will leave you to decide whether this effort is worthwhile. To me, it removes a more egregious visual error in the railroad coach, than even the incorrectly shaped roof. These matters are by definition subjective. For instance, at present, I do not intend to replace the commode handles, nor the side-end grab rails, with etched brass ones . I shall slightly carve into the rear of them and use a colour that gives the impression of a gap. I have experimented with this and - well, we will see. I'll do a post on Project 2 (using railroad sides with Comet other bits) in a later posting.

Well, you certainly know how to use a spray gun Lofty! Wow! Any tips would be appreciated when you have time, What will be your period (I mean, which decals and lining will you apply)? What's an OCD, by the way?

Yes, I have seen it more than once. Also I try to visit Pendon once a year at least, when I visit Didcot. If anyone here does go, spend sometime round the back, as the stuff in the fiddle yard doesn't move (Hungerford is a 'tail chaser') and you can examine the stock. The layouts that you mentioned, created by one person, are the most impressive (although daunting to contemplate making in my case). What happened to Jim Russell and Mike Longridge's efforts; do you or anyone else know? A bit OT but how many people know, I wonder, how much of the Dartmoor layout at Pendon was originally built by R.G. Williams himself, as well as loads of stock and the engines? I was privileged to be given a wander behind and underneath the Dartmoor scene and saw part of the original version of the viaduct, gathering dust, which Guy built, just using mainly paper and card materials.

Actually, what struck me is how unused we are to seeing 70 footers on GWR layouts (what am I saying, anything other than auto trailers and b sets :-) which perhaps has to do with OO 2 foot radius curves? I can't keep up with the mass production in Canada, but I admire it greatly (I almost wrote uuu*ly or b*gly).

Thanks Re6/6. I have amended post #327, so please see my appended comments there. On the Loctite site that you referenced, I used the search facility with 'plastic parts fixings'; and was confronted with a bewildering list of various offerings. I shall have to study these. In my case, I was fixing pre-Railroad era Hornby D95 plastic sides to the Comet Aluminium roof and Comet "white metal onto brass' ends. Work that one out!

Thanks Re6/6. I shall certainly try this one*, as my present tubes are coming to an end. Of course my 'bake' should have been in quotes, as it was just in the warm, as advised on the packet. The Loctite glue will not, unfortunately, stop a ham-fisted person (guess who) spoiling his carefully preserved paintwork. I am coming increasingly over to the principle of using jigs and holders, to avoid the need for handling. To answer the earlier query on warping, no it didn't, as, apart from the elastic bands, inside the body, the Railroad seating unit was inserted, see photo, to keep it all square. Update: I just remembered, a couple of prior spots of super glue spaced along, is also helpful when epoxying long pieces. *Update 2 See warnings in further postings. I quote from Loctite page referenced. "Not for soft plastic and Polypropylene." I looked up the last on Wikipedia and it is used in forming plastic mouldings for some models. Loctite has a bewildering variety of fixings and who knows whether the present Railroad range uses the same plastic that was used by the original models, which are what we here are modifying, due to their low cost from swap meets, ebay, etc. Come to that, I had no idea whether my present epoxy, now running empty, was suitable either!.

Nor handrails from sides up to roof -but yes to grip rails near lamp holder each side. New Hornby D95 has those. I am making progress with my two projects (nothing like as speedily as Lofty1966 sadly) but have endured many harassments with the second project (using Railroad sides with Comet ends and roof.) The idea was to avoid having to paint and line, but the glueing job got so messy, that I now have to paint, after cleaning up, so the whole purpose has been defeated. My advice is thus, don't go down this route, depending on what your personal modelling weakness is. Here is the culprit baking the epoxy on the radiator. Is that a good idea by the way?

Craig, on 'VENTLATED'. I should not be too concerned. Probably due to my myopia and an unfortunate habit of picking everything apart, I have discovered that I notice what 99% of us do not, because I tend to read every letter in every word, for some peculiar reason.. As evidence, nobody picked up on that one, until I did. It's a bit like 'layout coaches', about which I am still chuckling, after reading about the concept here. I think your photos on Morgan etched wagon underframes will be much appreciated, when you have time.

What materials for the steps are you using Lofty1966? Folded brass /ns? As a footnote, some coaches apparently have the bottom left step reversed (support above not below).. I don't know which though. Anyone have the answer please?

Craig, I see that on van 85274 you used the Martin Goodall trick (one of the MRJ issues) of missing out the i in 'VENTILATED' whereas in van 93085 you managed to get it all in (as you did in the Coopercraft V5 69891 in a later post #24). Is there a specific reason for getting it all in sometimes and others not? Please no one answer that one time it was too long and other times not!

One big bonus for modellers, if RTR toplights come out with a fishbelly (1914?) bogie, is that, hopefully, they will be sold as spares for replacing damaged ones, in which case the current apparent dearth of this type would come in very usefully for those of us engaged in various projects. I find accurate plastic bogies to be a delicate improvement on the more rugged white metal examples.