HowardGWR

This is what I got from GWSG members John Lewis and Robert Ferris. Many thanks to them. JL wrote "The underframes were: 1. Bars truss: Flat steel bar truss rods with round section queen posts, having a screw thread at the bottom of each queen post. Large nuts on the bottom of the queen posts trapped the truss rods and provided a degree of adjustment. See the close up at RC2 Fig 434. 2. Multibar truss. Round section truss roads, duplicated between the queen posts. The queen posts were angle with a casting on the bottom through which the truss rods passed. There was also a rod from each of these castings which passed across the coach. Adjustment was by means of nuts on the ends of the truss roads bearing on the castings. See the close up at RC2 Fig 435. 3. Angle truss.The truss rods and the queen posts were made of steel "L" section angle. This truss was non adjustable. Bars 1 coaches were built with bars underframe trusses.e.g. RCA2 Fig 10. Bars 2 coaches could have either bar truss underframes (eg RCA2 Figs 177 and 182) or multibar underframes (eg RCA2. Fig 312). Steel panelled coaches could have either multibar underframes (See eg RCA2 Figs 323-325) or angle truss (see eg RCA2 Fig329 and later). Note: 70ft coaches had 4 sets of trusses, 57ft ones had two. Quite a lot of the 57ft toplights were sold to the War Department for use in Ambulance trains. When repurchased c.1921 they had to be repaired. This could even include a replacement underframe of the "wrong" type! See RCA2 Fig 58 - originally a Bars 1 type coach." Robert Ferris wrote "Regarding your second question (whether RC2 Fig 435 is in error, notes Howard) I agree. Fig 435 is the Multibar arrangement - In this case the queen posts were of angle section with castings attached to their lower ends. The horizontal part of the truss comprised two parallel rods, while each sloping part was a single rod. At the queen post the two horizontal rods and a single sloping rod past through the casting. Each rod being threaded at the end and secured with a nut which could be adjusted to change the truss tension. This multibar arrangement also had transverse rods between queen posts to prevent lateral movement of the post." BTW note that John uses the abbreviation RC2 for Russell second book 1903 -1948, and RCA2 for Russell Appendix 2 Vol1, if you wish to examine your own copy, this may help.. Back with me now. It seems to me the sobriquets given, AIUI, by the late Mike Longridge, are insufficiently comprehensive, given that a Bars 2 vehicle could have multibar trussing and other variations. Oddly enough, one would imagine that the terms "bars" applied to the trussing, whereas it seems they better apply to the panelling, albeit with a meaningless sobriquet for that feature!. That's before we get into the id problems associated with the restored ambulance vehicles. I begin to see that an RTR manufacturer could better stay away from the toplights unless he chooses a 1930s era state of a known photographed vehicle (say). Good old GWSG, came up with the trumps.

Some interesting 'weathering' challenges for modellers there Pete! That was all very helpful indeed.

K14 To say I am grateful is an understatement. There is a lot to assimilate. Because there were many score 'views' of my posting without reply, until last night and your reply, I put out a duplicate request on the private GWSG Yahoo online discussion group and received two replies. I will study and then attempt to produce a summary of what I have received. If I say one of the replies was from John Lewis and the other from Robert Ferris, then I am sure members here will find the results interesting. Of course let that not prevent or discourage colleagues from making any further comment; indeed they will be welcomed by me. Once again, thank you Pete.

Coachmann In your previous post in the second sentence you referred to D95 and I think you meant E95. Coincidentally it was post #95. Spooky or what? Perhaps you could kindly amend if that is the case? (I always think about newcomers to the subject). Hope this is helpful.

That last sentence of yours raises one big difficulty with this range of coaches for an RTR manufacturer. To appeal to 'people who know' as opposed to the 'average modeller' it will be a poser as to what should be offered. As the latter group outnumber the enthusiasts on here by about 10,000 to 1, perhaps it's not so important. Perhaps an 'easy kit' could be offered, thus standard no panelling with the panelling offered as stick_ons to the steel version, thus allowing part panelling, full panelling or no panelling. It's easier to stick stuff on or to fill holes than it is to get unwanted protrusions off. See the faulty Railroad D95 guard's compartment.

I am very impressed with your 'batch' creation of the 70 footers Lofty1966. Thanks for the earlier pm by the way, but I will go on using your username here, as I believe that is RMWeb etiquette. On the battery boxes, I see that on the new Hornbys, they are suspended by two pillars at the front, and what looks like a moulding at the rear, which may be a 'design clever' Hornby idea for strength. Apart from whether this is prototypical, i have wondered whether the designs varied over the years. The Comet ones differ from the Hornby and other makes, regarding the fastenings of the covers (for instance). Perhaps K14 and others may have information on this. Any thought on that subject please?

How flush is the flushglaze? Remember I wrote earlier that only a few coaches of the last lot received it. So I wondered whether one can fit the flush glaze 'not quite flush' so it's not so deep behind the window as the Hornby glazing unit is?

I thought I would open this thread as I find the material on this subject (chiefly Harris and Russell) rather difficult to use. I would hope that if enlightenment ensues, then perhaps Miss_Prism may consider expanding on that very helpful website GWR Modelling. First Bars 1 and Bars 2. I have tried to discover what is the difference regarding trussing (the bars thus) between them. Harris describes the subject on page 72. He merely says the 'positioning' of the trussing differs but does not explain how. I have scoured the photo material in Russell and elsewhere, as well as used the search facility on this valued RMweb site, etc, but have not managed to turn up anything. Thus the first question is 'what is (are) the difference(s) between the two trussing methods'? The second error, that also prompted me to open a thread, is on page 250 Fig 435, which Jim describes as 'cantilevered' and 'Bars 2'. According to my understanding it is Multibar. I don't think the word 'cantilevered' is appropriate either, but I am no engineer. Am I right? More where this comes from but that can wait a moment. Hope someone knows and can kindly respond. Thanks.

Yes indeed Mike, (I am a member), but I must open the Churchward topic and see if I have been preceded on that one error I think to have found on trussing. I remember the list collated by Martin Goodall, and copied it out for online members IIRC. I don't remember a list for Vol 2 (1903 - 1948) but my memory is as efficient as my eyesight. Update: It would indeed appear to be only notes of errors in Part 1 1838 - 1913) "A Pictorial Record of Great Western Coaches" which Martin Goodall opined should have been called "A Muddle of Great Western Coaches" It might be a good idea to start a list of what is wrong in Part 2 (1903-1948). I may suggest this to the GWSG.

Thanks, I didn't even see them, let alone identify them! Is it de rigeur that all 70 footers have 4 trusses, by the way? Recalling an earlier conversation here, I find the reference books very vague on what is underneath, the works photos being the only ones that give much of an idea, the 1950s photos are usually in deep shadow, except for the close-up ones, and 1950s examples may be modified, of course. I believe Russell has an error on one of his close-ups, but as that is on a Churchward toplight era vehicle (I think) I will open another thread on trussing, as I would like to hear what colleagues know about these.

I can't. Which one is that in post #267 please (of the three photos)? They all look to be 70 footers to me (haven't got new specs though yet).

I would appreciate some introductions here. I don't know who's who and what is The Poll Team. I do know who John Lewis is (the respected GWR author and GWSG member). Please remember some of us are new to this or are returning after many years' absence. Thanks very much. Update: I think I do have a clue (I googled Hornby The Poll Team) I guessed it might need 'Hornby' after I failed with the rest of it. I still think a short introduction or a link to it would be helpful, thanks.

I am not aware of any route restrictions on grounds of length of coach nor have I read any reference to such. Are there any? I've seen photos of them down many a GWR branch (see Russell). Width, yes. While I am here, Jim Russell in his books makes reference to the Concertinas (which are of course 'toplights' by the way, as are Dreadnoughts) being so designed because of the width problem; in fact they were only 9ft wide, so I don't know where he got that idea from. Now, Dreadnoughts! If I was a RTR manufacturer, I would go for them. They too lasted to a great age. They would go like hot cakes.

It turns out I had known about all those (forgot them when I posted and had remarked on wrong gauge previously, although EM wheels on P4 gauged axles would have been fine), thanks Chrisf. Actually the list is not applicable to all versions anyway. The first lots would have had oval buffers (see works photos, as I pointed out back along) so it depends which era you are modelling, as to whether you would be sticking on 6mm diameter plasticard facings on the buffers or replacing them altogether. Neither would those lots and several later ones have had flush glazing, which of course was not an error on yours, but a works mistake, not picked up by the Hornby carriage shop foreman. Update: I forgot to write why I asked the Q. This was a bit OT. If it turns out that this is all that is at fault, they have done very well. When one compares with the Railroads, or Bachmanns, the latter two come out very well indeed, don't they?

Yes 81C, you are of course correct. As a possible footnote to the truss saga, I have checked using a magnifying glass, and Hornby, on the new release, has modelled the cross pieces also as angle bar, only with the horizontal angle on the bottom, facing the brake end. While we await the expertise of those who know, I would hazard that Hornby has got this right, as i can't see why they would have done this subtle difference from the side trusses, unless they had measured in detail. They have modelled the queen posts as solid square bar (could be hollow of course, but that is academic to we modellers). They have modelled the joining rivets or bolts and this too creates my expectation that it's correct. Have a look at the solebars underneath the continuous stepboard. How about that for detail, never to be noticed mind. What errors have you noticed or noted, 81C? I know about the roof vents, as you pointed those out earlier. I have also noticed some 'design clever' stuff (remember that era?) but I don't regard those as errors.

Yes I would have voted for diagram C or E (all seat, not brake) , multibar, 70 ft, if I could have voted, one of each, Neal, if you wish to note that. Clearwater, I love that one about the box, probably correct too. I am not friends with the fancy Hornby box. I couldn't figure how to open the interior plastic one and when someone here kindly pointed out how to do it, it suddenly gave way and the coach dropped out onto the carpet. Result: I need a spare end grab rail to the roof and a lamp bracket for my D95. Bah!

Chrisf I do need to go to the optician. Ah well, the discussion was interesting, but clearly, the two foot rule applies. In my case it would seem a six inch rule will apply until I have my new specs. You though, clearly don't need any new ones. :-) I think I will do new trusses though. Good for Hornby this time. As a result I am going to assume they got the queen posts etc correct.

Neal, I don't see any 70ft thirds (C33, C35, C38) nor the multibar equivalents in D and E diagrams. You only list an A. Is there a reason that I missed? As a general point, I suspect that not modelling WD sale rebuilds would be a good move by an RTR manufacturer, unless they are recorded as having been rebuilt to the specific diagram (e.g many in C35). Producing WW1 ambulance versions might be a clever move in time for Nov 11th 2018?. To add an idea to my livery 'pop chart', I imagine that any toplight now in preservation could be a good choice, as we see now that these RTR locos and coaches are often badge engineered and sold that way. I model (or try to) the era w/e 11th November 1933 :-)) so any types running in the early thirties in that livery period (or just earlier) would do well, as my cohort is the greatest membership of RTR buyers, as was proven recently by the Hornby Colletts. I couldn't complete the poll, as the diagrams I was interested in were not present and one was forced by the software to answer every question. Could that category be made optional, or could you expand the list please? Thank you for your effort.

John, thank you for restoring my sanity! I had recently booked a visit to the optician for Wednesday. Perhaps I don't need new specs after all! As most of this thread has been about mid 1920s Colletts, although it doesn't have to be of course, I must admit that a butchers at the photo of 4553 (C54) at DRC, see below, has for me been definitive. This was the example that Hornby measured. See its web site. One thing is certain: if you are modelling a version with the horizontal part on top, it's less of a problem that Hornby has modelled the bars as solid, which is why I thought they were so in the first place. Someone will now post that 4553 was altered by the GWS!

Once again thanks to both Pete and Mike. It's clearly an optical illusion (subjective clearly) and I hope Pete will not think I was doubting his word. Mike's superb photos are wonderfully clear. Now my next question is................ :-) Actually, I do have a few more but it's getting late. I hope some of these issues are of interest to colleagues. Looking at the Comet etch again, the L shape could have been made available as a possible fold-down, as I see it. I take John's warning; we do have to be careful with preservation ones but this case looks clear enough, as the example looks as though it's been back and forward from Pad to Penzance, a bit!

Just came across this Neal and will give it thought, thank you. One thing, your description in the poll of 1920 -1939 as 'shirtbutton era', could be perhaps split down into the various livery periods (I count at least 4, namely 1920 -1925 panelled with garter, 1925-1929 plain jane with shield, 1929-1934 lined or double-lined with shield, 1934-1939 single-lined with sb). It is the paint that RTR customers buy, which is why Hornby offered the third of my list above and the BR one. With an older coach, it depends when they went in for overhaul, but I suspect all of the above could have appeared on toplights.

Now I am confused. It looks to be on top, not on the bottom? That's why I thought it was a box and not an angle. Help!

You were about, thank you K14. Angle?! Well, well. My next Q was going to be whether the trusses were solid or hollow but that is now clearly not needed to be asked. I should have known. So all the RTR models are wrong, as is Comet's underframe. I went back to the Comet instructions and there was nothing there about soldering on some scrap brass to make the right angle. I assume the angle is 90 degrees as indeed, you mention the horizontal portion. I hardly dare asking about the bits between the queen posts, or indeed the queen posts themselves. They seem to be of the same section. I am not very good at reading these old G.A.s or the writing on them. I've scoured Russell again and I can't see any of this properly, most underframe detail being in deep gloom on the photos, although there is a good multibar photo in Russell pages 84 and 250 of volume 2 (1903 -1948). If I have misunderstood your kind reply, I apologise in advance.

Just getting down to solebar level now and looking at Russell photos, the side angled truss bars look square in profile, where the sun was shining on them in the photos. The new Hornbys have them about 1.2 mm square, but Comet uses 0.5 mm thick nickel silver /brass and as a result they are correct for side profile but are rather thin in width. Incidentally, this thinness and the fact that they are pointed at the end, makes for lethal handling. I resorted to covering the etch with sellotape, but they still broke free to cause personal injury! The Railroad ones are of course too wide-angled, so they don't reach far enough along the solebar, but at 1.2 mm by 1,5 mm, are acceptably robust; pity about the wrong angles and resultant length of them. I get the idea that the new Hornbys have been carefully measured. Would most here agree? If so, then I wonder if anyone has thought of beefing up the Comet bars, by soldering / glueing an equal thickness of n/s / brass behind them? The cross bars on the new Hornbys are 1,6 mm thick in the horizontal width. Again, looking at photos, this seems about right. The Railroad doesn't model them. As I am going to make new bars from plasticard for the model underframe components, does anyone have a view that the new Hornbys are correct? I think Pete (K14) is away from DRC at present, but if anyone else is visiting, perhaps take your tape measure with you - or perhaps you have a G.A. to hand at home?

I suspect it will be very restricted in range of use. They didn't like low radius turnouts.