HowardGWR

Harris, page 75 says the first went in 1931 and this was not confirmed (that all were gone) until 1935 when in a response to someone's question in Railway Magazine it was stated that this was so. Update: one of the few mistakes (I am pretty sure) in Harris is his diagram of the set arrangement. See if you can spot it, if you have a copy. The clue is in the symbol for buckeyes and that for screw.

See my point d). Your site came up immediately in Google! Problem is, I wouldn't have believed such obscure information was online, but indeed, "Google is our friend"! Thanks Richard

Sorry to be the next poster (awaiting glue to set on both projects) but came across a good upholstery photo today here. http://www.gw-svr-a.org.uk/images/1st-class_900px.jpg This brown colour, although somber, gives a real First class feel with the gold beading. They are doing a great job with the E132 (just an slightly updated E127). Here's the web site link if you had not already discovered it. http://www.gw-svr-a.org.uk/6045-restoration.html The third class will be the red and blue moquette, I expect. For we 4mm types, a dark red should be OK I suppose. In 7mm I expect some sort of representation would be needed? Going back to my discoveries about the first BE lots, I see that they did not have the joins across the roof. The Railroad D95 is numbered (4913), so in the first lot.

Ah, I've been wracking my brains to remember where I saw JL's amazing codifying article and I remember now that I've got it. :-) That's the trouble with off-line reference works, i.e. books and mags. You either a) forget you have it with the reference material under discussion b) forget where you put it in your extensive GWR bookcase library c) believe you don't have it because you think you took it out of the library ten years ago d) (nowadays) think you saw it on the net but you didn't or your search criteria is inadequate. If all information was online, d) is the 'best worst' because you are more likely to find it eventually.

Yes I should have offered to do the same and do so now. I worry about copyright (I presume someone took over the rights of MRC when it folded and of course there is John L and also the legatees of Jim Russell). Still I suppose that exchange of information for non-commercial hobby purposes is allowed, if no payment is requested. Anyone know about that for certain?

Good morning HT. No, but they can't help it if they have no roof or floor to keep them square, because of being flexible plastic (thank goodness, for my project). When I fix the roof on, I will use a spacing device to keep the sides the correct distance part (about 32 mm or scale 8ft). I have a pair of my late Dad's dividers that I got, along with other useful stuff from his toolbox, when he retired from Filton BAC (Inspector Tinsmiths and Coppersmiths) that will keep them apart and straight, or I could make a block of wood the same width. Update - it turned out that the Hornby seat /compartment module was exactly 32 mm width over its base and so provided a perfect spacer to keep the sides straight while I 'araldited' the roof on. As a footnote, it means that I have to saw off 2 mm along the side of the seat module if I am to use some of it (the third compartments) it within the new tumblehome width of the D95.

Just a brief update as I am 'in the thick of it' but I am recording 'what's occurring' (gosh, what a TV catchphrase user I've become). I've got two projects on the go now, which helps to use the time while glue or paint dries on the other. The one you've already seen is just correcting the Railroad D95 with hardly any bought-in replacements, as the goal of that project. The second is one, also a D95, that I started way back, and which is a sort of 'reverse Taz'. In other words I've cut away the sides of the Railroad and am fitting it into a Comet shell. Tricky. I already gave it up years ago, but i am now determined to make it work, now I have proved that you can bend in the Hornby sides to a fuller tumblehome. Remember, the motivation was to see if I could use the lovely Hornby paintwork, because I can't paint and I can't afford our professional painter colleagues. In the meantime, further research has revealed that there is no such thing as a standard Collett bow-ender. For a start, the first lots of C54, D95 and E127, were not flush-glazed; indeed only part of the last lots were (see Michael Harris book). Second, the first lot, at least, had elliptical buffers, see works photos in Russell. Many Russell photos are from the 50s and I am dubious about whether some photos are shewing buffer replacements. At least one BR photo shews an elliptical (Oval?) example. There is a lot more where that came from, I suspect. I have asked GWSG colleagues for other things they think are wrong with the new Hornby release, by the way. I'll report them if I get anything. Here's a photo or two of my second project where I have superglued the top half of the sides to the Comet ends. You need a deep breath and hold still for twenty seconds. I then reinforced the join inside with a fillet of araldite. The next stage is to fit and araldite the Comet roof. Having achieved a strong body shell (as it were) I will then bend in the already-thinned base of the Railroad sides to the bottom of the ends to achieve the desired tumblehome. I should explain that I had filed down the Comet ends (brass backing to a white metal bow end) to allow for the very thick plastic sides of the Railroad in order to achieve the required scale 8ft 6" exterior measurement of the base of the tumblehome. I laboriously filed a rebate on the inner ends of the Railroad sides anyway, so that the Comet ends would nestle in the rebates and help that exciting superglue hold-steady session. I needed more than one go at that to be honest. I expect a jig would have helped.

Not totally, as the references provided by Miss_Prism shew. I have an 1970s MRC article here by the late Jim Russell himself, called 'Cut and Slice' and he managed to get seven different vehicles, both bogie, six wheeled and four wheeled, out of them, also using a mix of Triang and Ratio. I think some were compromised in strict accuracy, Diagrams included C8, V1, Pols van (whatever that is). I think that the advantage of these units is that they're cheaply available and the mouldings, being accurate, save labour and will not fall off, a point made by Jim in his article.

These will then become 'New Colletts from New'? They are certainly good value at £20, even if you only wanted a repaint. Mind that would be a mammoth exercise for me and would probably end up a mess. I might change my view after I get that far with my Railroad D95 update. I am interested in what you (and others here) plan as your changes. Of course I assume this will depend on which era you are planning. They are representing early thirties at the moment, save for the BR paint job. I know the buffers are wrong. Anything else? One final thought. It shews what the mark-up was when they were £40 doesn't it?

Yes, that's what I plan. Hope it's not a bad plan. I have to alter the window of the new door a bit to the right, I think. I haven't looked into that in detail yet, but I think it needs to shove nearer the third class compartment IIRC.

Indeed, my local builder never bothered much on his own house. Mind, as an S and D enthusiast, all is explained. Actually he is a great bloke and a good friend. Unlike Lofty, 'I shall not cease, from Railroad fight' over Christmas. I am replacing the 0.5 mm plasticard headstocks that were too thin to withstand handling and snapped. The plastic scale problem raises its head again. If you choose 1 mm thick plasticard, that means your headstocks are three inches thick, - I don't think so, unless K14 tells me otherwise. I had assumed something like 3/8" steel, so that's why I tried to use 0.5 mm plasticard. Even that is a scale 1.5" thick, very meaty. I think the subject of making use of RTR plastic models is a general issue, but I propose continuing to discuss it here, always assuming it hasn't been discussed somewhere in RMWeb archives. (I expect it has). I am thinking of treating my D95 to etched brass, the Comet ones of course are that. Anyway, here are pics. The first shews the distance pieces at the two ends that I had to use to correct my underframe cutting error. The second shews that I have chickened out on the stepboard issue (using option a) in my list) at least pro tem. I have time to reconsider that before I add underframe detail. Oh, and I've begun to fill in the guard's wrong compartment window, first attempt.

Lofty1966, I just took the thicker fret G shape saw (or whatever it's called) and went straight down the centre, predicting that this would waste so much plastic that I would not have to do much filing to get the width down from 33mm (when pristine) to 31 mm to fit within the tumbled-home body (see earlier posts). I then filed each inner side successively and equally until I got the two sides touching at the point, where at that point, the two sides were the required distance apart, meaning no more filing was needed (see the photo again).. It didn't take long and then I made my backing piece to plonk the two sides on. There is enough of the various underbody right angled sideways moulded-in ribbing 'pipes', etc, to be able to match the sides perfectly. I had already also marked the position of the two bogie centres and when I poked a sharp point through them after glueing, it was comforting to see the point emerge precisely in the middle of the, now, oval-ised mountings. They are the ones that Taz filed down to be correct for his wheel diameters and give the correct height of the coach (see his blog). OK, not very elegant, as can be seen from the photo, but it was quick and it worked. However I made that cutting error with the headstocks removal, described earlier, meaning my underframe was too short by a mm or so, thus I have to make a bodge of a filler piece out of plasticard. Will report back when I am further down the road. If removing the headstocks, make sure you do it so that the underframe remains about 224 mm long. The backing piece should be (then) made a few mm shorter at each end, depending what the decision is about the step boards, discussed earlier.* I'll come back to all this later when I have 'done the business.' *Edit: re-reading this posting, the original black underframe rests (sits on, thus under) the side parts of the body ends. These are the ends that have the two prongs that normally hold the underframe on the original model, but I had, of course, lost those prongs, following earlier alterations. My plasticard backing piece was shortened to 220 mm, in order to form a rebate of 2 mm at each end. I'll post a photo to illustrate.

I've just lost a post where I had explained all this but just to go on with, here is the photo of my underframe for the D95, reduced in width. The white plasticard former I made was glued with epoxy onto the two 'halves'. It all went rather easily but I made measuring mistakes, more later. I've also just noticed that i possibly could have retrieved that lost post possibly. Oh dear, I am not knowledgeable about RMWeb. I've also just noticed that I appear to have loads of PMs and I apologise to anyone if they think I could not be bothered to reply. Again I am unfamiliar with this site. I'll look at them now. I'll retype my story of the underframe later, as I am fagged out after the failure.!

That's very helpful K14 and would indicate a depth of solebar beneath the step of about 3" (stress about). I am debating with myself, the next move. So I either a) ignore this Railroad error b) shave off / saw off the present step and place a strip of thin plasticard 1 mm above the bottom edge of solebar or c) place a 1 mm square section (for ease of affixing) of plasticard under and inwards of the present step and 'arrange' for the solebar to be resting 1 mm higher into the body, so as to keep the depth of solebar, including the affixed representation of the bottom of it, at a scale 9 1/2/" below the bodywork. Why 9 1/2"? The drawings in Russell shew 9" for the solebar and 1/2" for 'packing'. I don't know what the latter actually is. I hope that one of us manages to find out, I think that clearly a) is what most people would decide, but I am thinking of going with b). To that end I have experimented with some spare plastic material. Clearly, the difficulty is 'how do you keep a long strip of plasticard strip straight and level along a scale 56 feet odd of solebar. What I discovered gave me encouragement. I superglued one end of a long strip of 2 mm width plasticard, ensuring an end-on horizontal fixing (i.e at right angles to the solebar) and then put a dab of superglue at the other end and then drew the strip taut and then plonked it down on the dab of superglue and held still for 10 seconds. A few more dabs along the length afterwards would appear to keep the whole in a straight line. It worked. If anyone has a comment, I would be pleased to hear it, before I begin, as I am still dealing with the narrowed underframe issue, which will keep me busy for a while. I am also correcting the D95 guard's compartment error we talked about and thereby improving my filler skills (a few mess ups but getting there). Some way to go before I get to Lofty1966's standard!

Just to be clear, I wasn't referring to new Railroad stock, about the step board position. I was referring to the new Hornby releases of Colletts C54, D95 and E127 diagrams, which look prototypical to me on that point. I use the term 'pre-Railroad' just in case the Railroad ones have in someway been changed from what was produced way back, namely, the ones that we are attempting to improve, or alter, as you are doing in spades, Lofty! I just wonder. if K14 picks this up, whether he could kindly measure the height from the underneath of the step board to the bottom of the solebar on the full size examples. I was, as I wrote, interpolating from photos and also from the Hornby new model (modelling the model again ).

Ah, indeed. Just came back to report I am struggling a bit with mine, but not disheartened (yet). Will be interested to see your techniques. One issue (at least). The Hornby pre-railroads model the 9 inch depth solebars with the continuous step board at the bottom. In fact, they should be about (interpolating here) about 3 1/2 " above that. The new Hornby models do that. Any thoughts or decisions? Ignore the error, or possible solutions?

Still busy but dropped back in to see if there were any questions and there is this one. No, the side 'tumbles home' all along its length after bringing in, without one doing anything further specifically, other than bringing in the four corners. In fact, one has then to confront what one will do with the Railroad underframe, as it is now way too wide. What is forgotten (all right I forgot it) is that plastic RTR coach sides are about a scale 6" thick. OK for a Dreadnought WW1 battleship, but.... I see no alternative, at present, other than to do what TAZ eschewed (IIRC). Namely saw down the middle of the underframe and reassemble.. This is not too onerous a prospect, as the centre is marked out all the way along by various central non-visible mouldings. Will report later. * I have a Comet underframe, part-constructed, for the other project, and that is much too wide too, depending on whether one is using Comet sides or hacked out Railroad sides, as I am doing.

I hope my thanks buttons have been noted Lofty1966. I think that, between us, we have provided some useful photo info for those contemplating such work. I am now going to go quiet for a while (TGFT do I hear? :-) ) while I move my project onto the next stage.. The ends have been cut and filed to fit within the bow end, cleaned of moulded handrails and plastic gangways and now have now to be, at least, drilled for the holes to receive the new fittings,, before glueing the ends in and finishing with filler. I confess I was a bit too enthusiastic with the ends and now have to fill a small gap or two. Ah, well.

Indeed, I knew I wasn't writing anything new but it doesn't hurt to give it another airing, great stuff Lofty. I had put together a nifty photo with the unaltered Railroad body sitting on top of the new Hornby release. Here it is. Actually your photo is different to the new Hornby, - is it the D94 three compt?

Thanks, yes I had noted that (but do read on, it isn't what you may suppose)! The Railroad coach is in error. On one side, the compartment side, of the Railroad D95, one has to block off his supposed 'compartment' door and make good and then make the innermost window next to the third class compartments into a guard's door and add his grab handle (to both coach sides actually). I don't see this as a huge problem to achieve. In my case, I am altering a 'mustard yellow' era D95, so I have to repaint the entire upper half in cream, anyway, as well as paint in the brownish red wooden edges of the lights. On page 138 and 139 of Russell Volume 2, the layout of the D95 is repeated by mistake (yes another Russell error). Incidentally, Jim Russell's convention (was it also the GWR's?) appears to be that if the corridor is on the left hand side, facing forward, then it's a 'right hand van'. Another way of expressing it is that it's on which side the compartment is, that decides the term used -purely arbitrary anyway. (I know, groan, and watch out for if JR changes it sometimes! I did spot at least one instance a while back). I think Hornby Railroad only model the RH brake third, whereas they model both versions in the new release of D95. Anyway, on that very useful diagram, one sees that the guard sits with his back to the side of the coach, with the window next to the van space providing natural light to the table and letter rack which backs on to the van space. That's the window that one will keep on the Railroad D95. On the guard's own right hand side when he is sat, is the door which one will have to fabricate from the window nearest the inner third class compartment, as I just described. Thus at the rear of his seat is the blanked off door of the, till then, unaltered Railroad D95. I think I've got that all right!! :-)

Lofty, full of admiration. Would it be possible to say something about your techniques in cutting and shutting please? 1. How do you keep it all square while you cut? 2. Ditto when you shut. 3. What make of glue and fillers do you use. Any info much appreciated. During the studies on this site I came across the work of Taz, http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/68260-tazs-rtr-wb-improving-Hornby-collets/ with which I can see from the replies, most of you here are familiar. There are one or two things I have learned from my own effort that could have saved Taz some head scratching at the start of his, but what I learned from Taz's effort has shocked me that I had forgotten it. He had to use new seating on his E127 Composite because the Railroad composite has the error of three first class and four thirds whereas it should be the other way around of course. Aaargh!! So that's the end of my plans for making an E127 using the complete Railroad body. What annoys me is that, years ago, I had already been made aware of that and had forgotten all about it. Never mind, I will forge on with my D95 Railroad, but I am back to having to learn to paint, avoidance of which was the original purpose of the project. Sigh.

I don't understand what that poll message at the top of the page is about. When I pressed the knob expecting to be given choices, nothing emerged. On handrails, I think this has been pointed out by Bill Bedford, but if you scale the distance of handrails from the bodywork, then moulding them in with the body work is perhaps not so ridiculous an idea. Indeed, the ones in the photos above look too far away to me. Edit: At least in 4 mm scale or smaller. 7 mm is another kettle of fish of course.

Looks like Hornby have got it right respecting all those rivets on the tank then. It would not be possible for we at home to do those, IMO, as they are just scores of closely spaced pinpoints on the Hornby moulding, yet they are very distinctive, oh dear. Regarding the shell vents, I measured the various implementations and got these (roughly). side view length view (looking fore and aft) (Pre-) Railroad Collett 2.6 mm x 2mm Airfix E140 / E145 2.5 mm x 2.4mm new Hornby Collett 1.6 mm (!!!)x 2.6mm Comet w/m parts 2.6 mm x 2.4mm So it appears that 81C's eyes are not deceiving him! A bit shocking on a supposedly 'improved' model. Examining the vents under the magnifier, it seems to me that Hornby, on its new model, has simply not modelled sufficiently broad, the overarching 'helmet' that runs fore and aft. I am the proud owner of more than one new pre-ordered Collett (feeling smug or what, seeing present ebay prices!) and have checked out a few to be certain, both D95 and C54 versions. A thickness of paint can add a millimetre here and there of course, so the above data are averages of several measurements. K14 (Pete Speller) has very kindly provided some interpolated height and length measurements, see above quoted post. I noticed that, on the Airfix E140 (B set model), the vents are portrayed very proud of a roof base moulding, which makes them taller on that model than the others - 4mm or 12ins, whoops!. The dear old Railroad ones are deficient in length view direction, but this is not so visible, as one mainly views a model from the side. In my current project, I won't be shaving off and replacing vents on those models any more. What would I do (what shall I do) with the new Hornby model? Any suggestions welcome, but the Comet ones are good substitutes, clearly. Another plooi would be to glue a sliver of 1 mm plasticard around the top, fore and aft, of the present moulding. Too fiddly, I opine.

If what I saw on a Google search (photos of used cars) is correct then I don't like the look of Rover Russet Brown at all. Perhaps those cars had faded badly. Prometheus' Peugeot cafe noir (post 1 of this thread) looks spot on and the cream looks good too. On the latter colour, one could say that 'a lighter shade of pale' is preferable to 'buttery'. On the used car photos that Google turned up, the Rover Primula Cream looked quite good to me.

I've got lots to tell about my project, will assemble photos for later, but meanwhile, may I prevail on K14 again please? The question is: what paints does Didcot use for: GWR cream, GWR Brown? On this wonderful site, we have been advised Rover Primula Cream and Rover Russet Brown. I found this in the archive. As these are in 300 ml spray cans from Halfords for £6.99, I am more than tempted to go down that route. I can't paint for nuts, so a cheap solution is essential, as I may need several goes. I hope K14 is still watching this thread, and will be grateful for his advice and also for the views of other colleagues. BTW, I looked up the links to the RMweb Didcot tours. How both jolly and useful they must have been, and I am sure the chance to learn from everyone on such a visit is priceless.