HowardGWR

See interleaved in red. I was going to donate to one of the Super Saloons, so will increase that donation accordingly. Many thanks Pete (K14).

Interesting (about the shell vents). Have you made measurements and what was the difference? From sideways, they perhaps don't look fat enough. From overhead they look OK though. I wonder if they were painted a typical browny colour (Hornby has them all white) whether that could make a difference? It's a funny thing with models. Sometimes an exact model looks wrong, especially to we older types. It seems that in the past, we all got used to podgy white metal parts, (vents could be an example) and thus judge these matters differently.

Great reply Pete. What state is the C54 in, can you tell us? I know Hornby measured it, but when I (with permission) tried to inspect it, it was so gloomy in the stock shed, even with the lights on, I got precious little out of it. I could not get up into the coaches either. To be honest, I really wanted to view the Dreadnought C24 third, but I had the same problem. I am just glad these priceless coaches are under cover though. If one of us wanted a certain dimension, would you be prepared to measure it for us please? I have estimated the tumbled home width at the base of the body panels on the C54 as (about) 8ft 6in or a bit less . Any chance two of you could stretch a tape measure over it please? There's a small £10 donation to the carriage fund possible, as gratitude. I really wish there was a specific fund for either of the two above coach projects (C54 and C24).

Well he's over 50 and is in South Devon. I interpolated the RMweb entry from his age at 14 when he was infatuated with Debbie Harry (weren't we all and I was already 20 years older than gwrrob?). That should narrow it down to about 20,000 men. I don't know about phoning a friend as I don't want to be 'hanging on the telephone'. Perhaps Denis knows? :-)

From the photo background we could conclude, erroneously, that you are an armchair modeller, Horsetan! :-) I know different of course. I presume these roofs are for 70 footers (that's what David does). I know he will have nothing to do with computers, but I think his wife tells him what emails he has had, so one could ask for a quote that way. I think the ellipse shape is the same for Churchward top lights, as for Colletts. Is that correct?

I know this is heresy (modelling the model) but perhaps just look at the new Hornby and copy that (also for position). The new Hornby has loads of 'rivets' going around the sides.

Just an interim update on my pre-Railroad 'improvements' project - at least I hope they will be so-judged eventually! To recap, I have a still intact one with the roof hump smoothed out and checked for diameter. I did look at that Scaleforum article and the diagrams were interesting. However, my filed roof is the same shape as the new Collett model and the Comet one and that's good enough for me. Incidentally, David Geen does not list roofs (rooves?) as separate items on his website. Perhaps he sells them at shows.. The old Hornby black bow-end piece clips on to a built-in former, as seen in the photo of my earlier post. I'll repeat the photo for convenience. I do want to keep that former in place throughout the project, if I can, for strength. The next thing I noticed about the body, is that the tumblehome does not tumble enough (see above photo). Although not separately noted on official diagrams, the distance between the base of each side has clearly to be less than 9 ft. If you take a vernier caliper and measure the distance between the two sides it is nearly 9ft. In fact such tumble as was achieved by Hornby was by just thinning the sides at the bottom on the outside (see end-on in photo). I have interpolated the required prototypical distance as 8 ft 6 in from the drawings. To achieve that, the former needs to be attacked with a fine saw to create a gap. The two sides need to be brought in about a millimetre each at the bottom. This is what I did. A bit wonky with the saw on one side, but it doesn't matter there! I am using an adjustable spanner (G clamp could also be used) to bring in the sides at each end by 2 mm in total so as to achieve the 8 ft 6 in width. Tissue paper will protect the sides frorm the clamp and araldite type glue will be used to ensure a firm bond. I'll write again when (if) this is achieved. Edit: That last wheeze (with G clamp) did not work but I had another cunning plan so see next posting.

Mike, very nice, but could you remember what you were seeking to correct and what you did please?

Thanks Fatadder, I will look up that S4 article (I am a member so may contribute there, if it could be useful). Did you miss my blow by blow account earlier where I took a Comet roof and used it as a template (I called it a jig) to reshape the faulty pre-Railroad roof? I tried out the template on the new Hornby Collett roof and it fitted like a glove. So I don't get this 'LMS' bit. When I ordered some roofs from Comet, a while back, the catalogue only mentioned one roof product and I ordered that. My order was along with various bits and pieces for altering pre-Railroad era Collett coaches and your quote has made me wonder if the late Mr Brewer had more than one roof version, depending on the order requirements. I can't imagine this was so. He only listed one anyway, here it is from the suspended web site. C10 Alloy coach roof section-285mm 3.60 So I will chase up that S4 Soc article but meanwhile, it's result that counts for me. As I wrote earlier, either Hornby have made an error again with the roofs (!!), or the business about Comet 'LMS roofs' is a modellers' myth. :-)

I forgot to mention, in the previous post, that I see as main advantage that the end joining panels are retained. My first attempt was sawing off the roof,as described by a colleague here, and replacing with a Comet one but I sawed off the 'joiners' first and that was not a good idea, I discovered. I have ended up with the two thickish sides that do not marry up with the Comet ends that I was hoping to achieve. Had I retained the body intact, minus roof, that job would have been much easier, as I hope to prove with this current project. It's difficult to explain, but the pre-Railroad sides are thick and don't tumble enough, whereas the Comet white metal ends do. Had I retained the body in one piece I could have used the Comet roof and Comet end kit, much more successfully, as our colleague did, see earlier. I may post photos. I see from my last email that I can achieve this feat - phew!

Great examples here on this thread, well done all. I have done what I said earlier and have taken an old pre Railroad mustard yellow D95 body and have filed down the 'hump' on the side of the roof. I enclose (hopefully) photos. One is of the filed roof body next to an untreated E127 composite that I hope to deal with too. The D95 filing was by way of an experiment and I would not have been too sad had it failed. Hopefully, although under flash, the disappearance of the shadow caused by the hump can been seen. Earlier photos in this thread perhaps demonstrate it better. The next photo is of the roof, shewing how the paint that is left on demonstrates which parts I filed. The transverse lines and blobs were the roof joins and vents respectively. The third photo shews the two bodies end on and the better roof shape is hopefully clear. I used a 6 inch long, half inch wide file, so no huge file needed in the end and the plastic filed easily. It took about 2 hours, including making a roof jig. This was an aluminium Comet roof three cm long offcut which I adapted by sawing off the side edges of the offcut so that the remaining ellipse of the roof could be used to judge whether I had filed sufficiently and whether I had achieved the correct shape, as I went along. What is the correct shape (in other words is the Comet roof correct)?. I checked that by placing the jig onto a new Hornby Collett and it fitted like a glove. Hopefully Hornby got it right this time, otherwise they needn't have bothered!! I had bought the new Hornby Collett release, most types, by advance order, as I was one of those, probably like you, who had for many years voted for these coaches in the annual polls. They are rather fine and i can get rid of the double lining easily. I am pleased with the results and will now go on with the ones I intended, including that E127. In fact I may use the poor old D95 anyway. I just need to paint the upper half in proper cream and replace the button with a crest transfer. My modelling period is November 10th 1933.

Very nice indeed bgman. Introducing GW-speak to this thread, one does not apparently refer to projections as 'duckets'. I got this from David Geen and Barry Scott and you don't argue with them.

Lofty, I think this is an H25, lot 1330. Did it involve just snipping off the bow-end, or is there more to it? I might be tempted on mine if that is all that needs doing. Incidentally, Michael Harris has these in the index as 8ft wide but says they are 8 ft 6in wide in the text on page 77 so the index has a typo, clearly.

Having caught up by 'agreeing' and 'liking' and 'thanking' everyone (especially Prometheus, most grateful), I have continued to examine the pre-Railroad roof shape, presumably the same as a 'Railroad' one. In fact the top elliptical curve is OK, but there is this doming at the side which does catch the light and shadow (see roof photos earlier in this thread). It's not a big deal but I thought I would try and solve it if I could. I have a butter-coloured pre-Railroad E128 that is sacrificially-available to practice on. I shall begin with trying to remove the dome effect with a long heavy file (the plastic is very pliable and forgiving on these older Triang / Hornby models). If I 'go through' before the desired shape is achieved, I will consider then sawing the roof off and replacing with a MJT or Comet roof (thanks for the reminder on MJT, available at http://www.dartcastings.co.uk/mjt.php#CarriageComponents-Roofs&Fittings for £2 each. but I don't see any available on Roxey web site. The ones on Comet are priced £3.60. I am not quite sure what is going on here, as the 285mm width size is indeed what you need and the MJT one is 'discontinued'. I may ring Dart Castings for advice.

Do we need a new topic "New Colletts from old - modified Railroads" or can Prometheus alter his OP title? Yes I will keep posting on this (it will keep my nose to the grindstone - ouch).

Prometheus (Tony) - I don't want to be a fraud. I am still building it and no, I don't think this was the best plan. I was already using Comet ends, but have had difficulty marrying up the sides to them, because the old Hornby sides don't have a sufficient tumble home on them to match the Comet ends (which is another error with what we now call the Railroad coaches). In fact I wish I had kept the body shell intact and tackled the existing roof in another way. Read on! Once you have split out the components (see illustrations of those that you kindly provided earlier in thread) I am toying with the following. I have another pre 'Railroad' Collett (E127) and I am going to keep the body shell intact this time. What is wrong with the Railroad roof is simply that it does not curve gently around to the apex in an ellipse, but goes vertical, then a sharp bend and then flattens. There is plenty of 'meat' in the roof, so what I am going to do is take a large file and take off that sharp bend to leave a shape that I can match to the Comet roof shape of an offcut that you end up with, after cutting the Comet roof to length. I will lose all the roof detail after filing and rubbing smooth, which detail, as you pointed out, is all wrong in size anyway. I will then affix the Comet download sheet to it and then drill positions for vents and affix new slender lines. That would still leave the error in the tumblehome (not enough tumble) but this is hardly noticeable. Anyone see a snag? :-)

Xuron snips, there seem to be a many sorts. Which ones are you using Lofty1966. Do you see it here? https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=xuron+cutters&tag=googhydr-21&index=aps&hvadid=155843373288&hvpos=1t1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=17031194377391389072&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9045345&hvtargid=kwd-1423447949&ref=pd_sl_4m5bd8bbcm_b

Agreed, Was gloss, satin or matt used, Coachmann, (and varnish to make glossier if not gloss used)?

What a brilliant expression! 'Layout coaches'. Almost as good as Peter Denny's 'two foot rule' and almost in the same sentiment. I notice, on Pendon visits, that I am enthralled with layout viewings but become hyper-critical when examining the glass case exhibits! On topic, I have grappled with keeping the sides of an old Hornby D95, because I can't spray paint, and my old Hornby D95 is in the colours of my time period (1933 Single line and replace shirt button with crest). I used the Comet aluminium roof, cut to size. I noted that our other correspondents here can live with the old Hornby roof but I can't. Cutting the old Hornby roof away from the sides was a nightmare. I am an 'armchair-skilled' chap, but I managed it with very minor damage to the cant rails (sweated 2 kilos weight off), and the blemishes could be easily filled and the underneath bit cantrail brush-painted. Comet provide a download of the roof vents, etc positions and you can stick that to their roof to use as drill positions, as they advise. I messed up the roof shaping slightly by the way, as I mistook how the bow end bows, but I can fill the error, pity though. All the above applies just as much to an H33 as to a C54 or an E127, so I hope it's interesting. Of course, you can buy the D95, E127 and C54 RTR now, but all the points are similar for E128 and other 57 ft bow enders.

All good points. I am moving my reply over to the GWR Rolling stock thread, as it seems appropriate, hopefully mods will agree. Likewise I feel possible posts on improving these coaches would be better posted there IMO, as it seems more logical. I am beginning to realise that we shouted for these coaches for decades. Now I have the lot and I sit back admiring them. Unfortunately, to produce a real train from the 1920s onwards requires a whole host of diagrams that don't exist in RTR! That's not Hornby's fault, it's the GWR's! :-)

Thanks Darwinian. Clearly it will be only a few examples that would not have survived very long but for those who like variation, a find, indeed. I really would like anyone to tell me that there really isn't a black line on the 'plain janes', as I see one (am getting old though).

Indeed, acquisition of the two books, (there are two volumes) would put this nonsensical discussion of 'sets' of these Hornby E95, C54 and E127 coaches to bed, once and for all. Any typical GWR train after the first production of these coaches would have a mixture of pre WW1 coaches, post WW1 updates, all with a toplight, a few with indented vestibules (the dreadnoughts), a clerestory or two up to 1930 at least, and........... Need I go on? Please get those two excellent books (original photos by G.H. Soole) and also those by Maurice Earley, for example, and then shew me just one train that has only a pure set of the Hornby coaches. Don't bother, because there aren't any (maybe a GWR publicity shot at Rushey Platt). If you think that Hornby has provided a total RTR solution for depicting GWR trains, forget it. You are dreaming of what never existed.

Very nice, and the piping for the vacuum and /or steam heating seems well worth the effort. Just that delicacy makes a model. Not MIB any longer then?

I'll take the subject over to GWR Rolling stock as this thread is supposed to be about the new Hornby bow-enders. I think the colour of them is acceptable, but just a tinge too yellow. As I wrote, one of the old batches was pure yellow. I enclose a photo.

According to my reading of the photos, even the 'plain jane' livery, referred to by Harris, has just a single black line between the brown and cream. If you look closely at all the photos of that livery, in the enlarged photos in Russell, I think the line is there, though there is some difference of opinion over this aspect. I don't understand the combination of garter crest with plain jane. If there is such a photo, I would be pleased to have my attention drawn to it. According to my reading, it went straight from imitation panelling and garter crests to plain jane with shields. I admit I have not examined the suburban sets too closely; only the B sets.