buffalo

Looks good. I certainly agree with you about the High Level chassis. So far, I've built a pug and 14XX and have a Collett goods and pannier to do. Nick

Thanks, Adrian. I don't think I've come across that usage before, hence the confusion. Nick

Very inspiring :icon_thumbsup2: The 4 plank, cordon and V2 (I think) are all on my list of things I want to build. They'll be in 4mm so if they look half as good as yours, I'll be pleased. btw I've always wondered about the tilt wagon. What were they used for? The name and shape implies that they could be rolled over. If so, how? Nick

I finally finished making and fitting the lamp sockets to the 2500 gallon tender, so it is now ready for painting. The engine and tender have been scrubbed with 'Bar Keepers Friend' and warm water, and are now drying after rinsing in cellulose thinners. In the meantime, I'm trying to warm the garage sufficiently to get a coat of primer on before it gets dark and the temperature drops. This was the state of the tender and its chassis a little earlier this afternoon. Nick

Thanks, Mikkel. I noticed that you have an Armstrong goods, another of my favourites. Can you see the images? I can't... Nick

Now that all the Buffalo and 48XX pages have been brought over from the old RMweb, it is time to introduce something else that has been on my workbench for a while. This is a Martin Finney Dean Goods kit with matching 2500 gallon tender. This was my first brass kit, started early this year before the Buffalo arrived. At that point, the major brass components had been assembled into a reasonable likeness of one from the early, narrow footplate, lots with an S4 boiler around 1900-1905. As this will eventually have a similar livery to the Buffalo, I thought I would get both to the same state so that they can be painted together. So, after adding various white metal parts and making more lamp sockets, this is how she looks: A little more tidying to do, then I'll need to clean up the tender. With luck, I'll get a coat of primer on this weekend. Nick

Whilst the brass pins are useful for this and other applications, it is quite possible to build the Masokits couplings using ordinary brass wire. Nick

On the old RMweb, there was once a reply thanking David for pointing out the errors in my painting, but it seems to have gone missing in the transfer Anyway, he was right about the splashers although the tank tops really are a dark grey. The green appearance in the photos is probably reflection. Nick

Buffalo WorkBench by buffalo original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ This is the fifth and final page copied from the old RMweb. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:47 pm LNWRmodeller wrote: I've no doubt you'll get a variety of advice, including machining new ones from rare metals. You could start by asking Colin Seymour of AG to supply some more. Then, carefully ream out the axle holes slightly with a 1/8" parallel reamer, so that they are an easy push fit onto the axle. Fit them using a suitable retainer adhesive - I don't know if Loctite 243 is correct for plastics. According to their website, Ultrascale supply 603. I suggest you check the Loctite website. No rare metal suggestions yet but I will ask Colin to send me some more. I'm hoping that you have the answer here and that they were just a bit too tight when I fitted them. Fortunately, there were a couple of spares in the kit, so I have now fitted one of these as you suggest by making it an easy rather than tight fit on the axle. I'll leave it another 24 hours to see whether it develops a crack. I'll also post a query on the Q&A forum to see if there's any more experience of success of failure out there with these particular cranks. btw, 243 is the threadlock retainer. I used this only for the Gibson crankpin screw and that doesn't seem to have caused any problem. The cracks are spreading towards this hole, rather than from it. I've used this before to fit both Gibson and Ultrascale crankpins to their respective wheels without any noticeable problems. I used 603 to fit the cranks to the axles and, again, I've used it before to secure both makes of wheel to their axles. I did check the Loctite spec sheets as you suggested and for both of these compounds they say "This product is not normally recommended for use on plastics (particularly thermoplastic materials where stress cracking of the plastic could result). Users are recommended to confirm compatibility of the product with such substrates." I'll see if Colin has any comment on this as I'm sure he will know what type of plastic is being used. Miss Prism wrote: Not sure about machining new cranks from, err, 'rare metals', and I agree with Jol about trying again with another AG set - failing that, you could investigate Martin Finney's outside crank etch, which is a 3-layer-laminate, but I think that crank etch might be for turned down 2.5mm axle ends, so would require quite a bit of careful jigging, drilling and reaming etc to get them all the same. I think Martin's cranks will at least be a better overall size and shape. I haven't seen Martin Finney's cranks, although a couple of his outside framed products are high on my wish list. Your mention of the reduced size of the axle ends made me wonder about the size of the prototype cranks, something I hadn't questioned before. It appears from the drawings in Russell that the axle end of the crank is about 12" diameter with a 6" axle end, much smaller than the Gibson cranks. Presumably the ends were turned down on the prototype axles as well, as I would have expected around 9" for the bearing journals. Unfortunately, I don't have any large scale drawings of suitable prototypes to hand to confirm this. If my estimates are anywhere near correct, I suspect the Finney cranks would certainly need some "careful jigging, drilling and reaming" and I wonder whether they could be made to fit a 1/8 axle. Bertiedog wrote: I have dropped you a PM about the cranks Thanks, Stephen, see my reply. So, the current plan is to see how the test with a single Gibson crank works out and, in the meantime, contact Colin about the problem. Hopefully, I'll manage to get the plastic cranks to work. After all, others must have done this... If all else fails maybe I'll have to think about making my own cranks. Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by Craigw on Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:16 pm Nick, All the Martin Finney OF loco kits are supplied with multi layer laminated outside cranks. These are intended to be used with a special turned down axle that Ultrascale supply - I assume it is the same situation for the cranks he supplies as a spare part. I have not looked at the Gibson outside cranks, but the Finney ones certainly look close to scale to me. You could order the Finney cranks and order the axles from ultrascale albiet that the wait for the latter may be significant. Well done on the Buffalo, looks very nice indeed. I am severely tempted to get one to add to my wall of death. regards, Craig __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:30 pm After a discussion in the QQH&A forum, I've decided to get another set of the Gibson plastic cranks and fit these with Loctite 603 after carefully reaming them to size. My error appears to have been pressing them on when they were too tight, hence the splitting. Leaving aside the chassis for the moment, I've been doing a bit of work on the cab and bunker. As supplied, the bunker front had a representation of a sliding coal hole door and two sandbox levers which were linked by a rod so that they could be operated together (see photo in this post. I've only found a couple of examples of prototype photos with this link arrangement, both after rebuilding as panniers, and plenty of evidence that the independent levers were the norm. All the indications are that the coal hole door was a simple flap and the vertically sliding door with prominent runners is, largely, a later feature. Similarly, the prominent rivets on the casting are not visible in any photographs. I am reasonably convinced that a raised floor, as intended in the kit, is probably mythical (see this post and another discussion in QQH&A), and that these engines had what seems to be the normal Dean tank arrangement of two sandboxes in front of the bunker and partially blocking the cab entrances. The result of all this is that I have filed and sanded off all of the features on the front of the bunker, replacing them sith a simple flap and a pair of fabricated sanding levers. The cab sandboxes appear from photos to be placed with their long axis across the cab and to be a bit smaller than those at the front of the footplate. So, instead of ordering another pair of castings from Colin, I decided to make my own. Instead of the raised floor supplied in the kit, I have made up a wooden floor from 1mm thick basswood sheet to represent a simple planked floor directly on top of the footplate. The current state of the cab can be seen in these photos: The eagle-eyed will also notice that I've added the springs to the footplate. I was in two minds about these castings as they are not really of a modern standard. They are a little too short to match up with the spring shackles beneath the outer frames, there is no attempt to represent the leaves of the springs, and the match between the mould halves is quite poor. The even more eagle eyed will notice that I missed one of the rivets... Actually, this photo shows the back of the casting but the only difference is that the front has a representation of the pins on the hangers. I did consider searching for alternatives and even fabricating my own, but the thought of cutting and mounting 60 pieces of shim for the ten-leaf springs was a bit daunting. In the end, I decided I could always replace them later if I found a supply of better ones. Fitting them led to a small problem: it is not possible to feed them through the holes in the cab front, so I had to cut the rear springs in half and fit one part from the front and the other inside the cab. Ideally, then, they should be fitted before the cab. However, I would not be happy about adding white metal components so close to a point where I intended to use a high temperature solder, so the cab would probably need to be attached to the footplate with 100 or perhaps 145 degree solder. Nick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:38 pm Craigw wrote: ...You could order the Finney cranks and order the axles from ultrascale albiet that the wait for the latter may be significant. I'm tempted to try these but, as I hope to get either a Stella or a Duke from Martin Finney in the near future, I think I'll leave it until I've seen how they are intended to be used (assuming I can get the Gibson ones to work). It would be easy enough to turn down the ends of Gibson axles, or make new from silver steel rod if I wanted to avoid the expense and wait for Ultrascales. Well done on the Buffalo, looks very nice indeed. I am severely tempted to get one to add to my wall of death. Thanks Your "wall of death" conjures up images of an entire loco fleet with their wheels glued to the wall, either that or very unprototypical speeds... __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bertiedog on Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:52 pm If you have access to a lathe, then springs are a doddle, no need for shims etc, just take a brass disc of the diameter to match approx the radius of the top of the spring, and mount on a face plate with super glue. A series of very fine lines are machined on to the face of the disc, matching the spacing of the springs. The disc is made as thick as the scale springs need, remove with heat from faceplate, and the all you have too do is cut up each "spring" to length, and then notch file each step of the under side of the springs, really does not take long. The whole "spring" can than be annealed and bent to the compound curve the real things have, in over words the ends are at a tighter radius, and have the shackles, and main spring rod, soldered on etc. No shims, no parts except shackles and they look 100% accurate. Stephen __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:20 pm Excellent, thanks Stephen That's one of those 'blindingly obvious but only when you know how methods'. I just hadn't been thinking about it from that direction. Even so, I've cut balance weights out of a circle before now, so I should have thought of something like this... Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by Miss Prism on Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:36 pm Really like that cabwork, Nick, but what gives with the brass rod outrigger? Concerning the springs, I don't think the lack of leaves is that noticeable after a coat of paint, and possibly the only real visual problem is the 'filled in' section between the shackles. They can be drilled/filed out, but... __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:44 pm Miss Prism wrote: Really like that cabwork, Nick, but what gives with the brass rod outrigger? Thanks, Miss P. For some reason, I really like doing cabs. My 14XX/48XX is full of quite invisible details when the roof is on, but I know it's there and comments like yours really help to make it worthwhile The brass rod is the start of the outside mounted shut-off lever for the sight glass, a common GWR feature of the period as I'm sure you're aware. In the first photo you may be able to see the other end fitting into a hole in the top of the sight glass. Concerning the springs, I don't think the lack of leaves is that noticeable after a coat of paint, and possibly the only real visual problem is the 'filled in' section between the shackles. They can be drilled/filed out, but... You're right about the paint and and the filled-in bit. They are only stuck on with a tiny spot of epoxy so, if it bothers me, I'll give Stephen's idea a try. Nick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:56 pm A quick update on progress. The chimney is now attached to the tanks, but the dome and safety valve cover will not be fitted until after painting as I want them to be removable for polishing, if needed. The motor cutout in the underside of the boiler has been filled in and a front panel for the firebox added so that the motor and gearbox will be completely hidden. The various details were added to the underside of the tanks, including the injectors and balance pipe. Some short pieces of 0.5mm bore tubing were added in front of the balance pipe and matching holes drilled in the footplate. Together with some 0.45mm wire, these will form the fairly prominent pipes running down to rail level. I read somewhere that these were for washing the railhead, is this true, if so why? The front sandboxes and toolboxes were added next before soldering the tank/boiler unit to the footplate. The pipe flanges at the bottom of the injectors had previously been drilled 0.75mm and matching holes drilled in the footplate. Once the boiler had been mounted, short pieces of 0.7mm wire wire inserted through through the footplate and into the injectors to represent the exhaust pipes (I assume that's what they are) which emerge from behind the outer frames. I've noticed that many of the saddle tanks had these pipes passing through the footplate like this though, after conversion to pannier tanks, the pipe is often routed over the top of the footplate. So, not much remains to be done on the body. The whistles need to be added to the cab roof but, unfortunately, the castings supplied with the kit are the wrong type. They have a right angle bend immediately below the whistle parts so that the pipes can pass through the cab front. Whereas this pattern in common on later GWR designs, most, if not all, Dean era engines had the whistles passing vertically through the cab roof. I don't think there is a Gibson casting for vertical whistles, but I'll have to check with Colin to see if they have an alternative available or, failing that, fabricate my own as I did for the 48XX. Had I known, I could have used these for that model... Other outstanding parts are the old style lamp sockets. I ordered some of the LNWR type which should be quite similar to the GWR pattern from London Road Models some time ago but, although everything else from the same order arrived quite quickly, these are still outstanding. I'll have to contact them again to see what's happening. Nick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:39 pm buffalo wrote: ...Other outstanding parts are the old style lamp sockets. I ordered some of the LNWR type which should be quite similar to the GWR pattern from London Road Models some time ago but, although everything else from the same order arrived quite quickly, these are still outstanding. I'll have to contact them again to see what's happening. Just a quick update to record my thanks to Jol Wilkinson (LNWRmodeller) and John Redrup of London Road Models After my last post, I received an email from Jol about the missing lamp irons and within hours the problem was sorted. It turned out that John had sent the castings with a copy of his catalogue, but the package arrived looking like the postman had given it to his dog to play with and without the lamp irons. Once it was realised what had happened, John immediately posted a replacement and these have arrived safely today So one of my next tasks will be some minor adaptations to make them look more like the GWR pattern lamp sockets. Nick __________________________________________

Buffalo WorkBench by buffalo original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ This is the fourth page of the Buffalo build copied from the old RMweb. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Jul 27, 2009 5:39 pm Ah, the dangers of introducing new topics in the middle of a thread...everything gets interleaved Stephen and Andy, thanks for starting a vigorous discussion of the CLAG CSB approach and its antecedents As I understand it, the CLAG people favour having no constraints on the movement of the ends of the spring beam. However, the pictures at http://www.clag.org.uk/class2p.html show what I believe is a typical example of their approach where one beam end is bent to form a small tag, presumably just to aid retention. It appears that, under some conditions, this will constrain linear movement of the spring. Under these conditions, the effect would be identical to that of the fixed end Varney and Lindsay approach with the screw and end spring at the fully slack position. The benefit of this latter approach, as described by Stephen, would appear to be that one can start with a slightly too light spring beam and then increase the spring rate until the desired ride height is achieved. This does seem rather easier than hoping you have the fulcrum positions correct and experimenting with different wire thicknesses. Provided that there is no restriction on the linear movement of the spring beam at the intermediate and spring end fulcrums (fulcra?) and over the movable hornblocks, then the two systems should be equivalent. I accept that in practice there will always be some restriction here, but this would be small as would any differences in restriction between the two approaches. Where the approaches differ appears to be in the location of the fulcrums. The instructions in the spreadsheet make it clear that spring rate on the central axle of an 0-6-0 should be reduced to enable a softer spring and hence greater deflection for the same input. If I understand it correctly, this is intended to improve pitch stability. In contrast, Stephen suggests making all spring sections the same length so, I assume, having a constant spring rate on all axles. Of course, I may not understand all this as well as I thought... Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bertiedog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:15 pm Apologies for hijack to springing, it is to entertain you whilst musing about the Buffalo and CSB.......... I do tend to try on a straight forward equal spaced 060 to space the fulcrums equally, but I do shift them if it's say a GWR Castle chassis, making the middle run longer for more movement, and a shorter run over the front axle to stiffen. The taut wire does the rest. I have never worked out the formulas...life is too short on models..... I did work out such details for test equipment, we made instruments to BS National test standards, no tolerance test gear..but models? The drawing was only a quick sketch and in practice the wire is near straight at the correct tension, a very small deflection occurs as it settles on the track....AND IT IS ALL ADJUSTABLE, a vital de-luxe addition, rather than trying to design a one fits all solution. It does take a bit of thought to find the right springs of course, again it may not suit running straight from the box....but we are building locos and that's what makes it a bit of fun............ The max., rise is about 20 to 25 thou (.5 mm is 19.6thou), very small, and makes theoretical calculations of beam angles only an academic exercise........ The inner end is formed in a loop, around a stud, and has no restraint up and down, and the other end is sprung via the shackle. Originally two springs were used by Lindsay, according to my friend who was an NMRA expert, and supplied the details of the Varney long before I saw any. I too am too young to have seen the original at the time. He had several, and I still have one of these, along with a Kemtron Wabash mogul, modified to full springing with duel coil sprung wires. The locos could manage a test track we built with a roller coaster surface to the rails to test the track holding ability. At the time, about 1972, most Japanese brass locomotives also had full springing, but with individual coils on each axle. There were no UK locos with any form of springing, except hand built. The locos worked fine on ordinary track or "rough track", but failed on the roller coaster, which the Varney strolled along, albeit leaning a bit as the bumps were 4 to 8 mm high and random length!!. The main purpose was to test the RP25 wheel profile and how small it could go, and develop fine scale HO standards like the then new P4. The test standard loco was a Tenshodo Niagara, fitted with new rate adjusted springs, and 2mm possible movement. The Varney Pacific has movement of about 3mm, much more, and it weighed about 4 pounds due to a lead boiler. The wires are about 25 thou. I added a compensated bogie pivot, with side and weight transfer from the main frame, and also modified the trailing bogie to springing, without compensation. The trucks were Central Valley fully sprung 6 wheeled. It was very difficult to find track bad enough to stop the loco......the test run was made from old Wrenn 16.5..the fibre base, so had warps in it already! I also built a roller coaster test track in P4, to see how far you can go with rough track, and the Varney system was again the best, allowing 4mm bumps and dips of random lengths. By it's very natural P4 is more difficult, most UK locos are more difficult to arrange the springing due to the variety of wheel bases. The test loco was a P4 Castle, and a Tri-ang Lord of the Isles converted to P4, with springing by coils. As some as the bugs were worked on UK outlines, I stuck with the sprung wire as the preferred method making locos professionally. Believe it or not many UK customers ordered locos without springing at all, they disliked any form of springing.....I hope their track was perfect............ Stephen. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bertiedog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:01 pm I accept that in practice there will always be some restriction here, but this would be small as would any differences in restriction between the two approaches. Where the approaches differ appears to be in the location of the fulcrums. The instructions in the spreadsheet make it clear that spring rate on the central axle of an 0-6-0 should be reduced to enable a softer spring and hence greater deflection for the same input. If I understand it correctly, this is intended to improve pitch stability. In contrast, Stephen suggests making all spring sections the same length so, I assume, having a constant spring rate on all axles. Before it gets taken as gospel that I said the fulcrums should be equally spaced, it only applies to reasonably symmetrical chassis, after all the real thing has no fulcrums, wires or beams, and may not be compensated at all. you have to use a bit of judgement, and adjust things to allow more or less movement as needed. I should state firmly that I really prefer to fit full compensation beam suspension, and I have built 5 inch gauge passenger haulers with "real" suspension several times.....the whole wire system for HO and OO is only a workaround to get good working results, not related to the real arrangements of full sized locos. Stephen. __________________________________________ Comment posted by intelegence on Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:24 pm Bertiedog wrote: "intelegence" Firstly, I don't believe the the CLAG team has laid any claim to being the original inventors of CSB's. Many of their comments on various lists have humbly referred to merely building on the work on others. I did not say that CLAG originated it.......... You said they re-invented it. But having replied to the assumptions posted, I would like to say that, as a past manufacturing industry professional, the thought of an "adjust on test" requirement on a design intended to be reproduced by others as simply as possible , seem to me to be a major retrograde step. . So.... all spring designs should work without adjustment, and each loco would need individual diameters to suit the weight? Yes. the loco weight isn't going to change after it's commissioning And all locos of the same design should be able to work with the same diameter wire. I haven't yet bought an automobile that subsequently required any adjustments to it's spring rates either .The only adjustment possible* on the beam is the diameter... That simplification is CLAG's major point and claimed advantage. unless other springs are added. Adding the coil spring eases matters all round. *without adjusting the fulcrum points, and consequent spring length I think that you may be over estimating the effect of the spring, it is the wire beam that takes the weight, not the coil spring, which is there to exert extra assistance to the springing. No. by your own logic, you just said it compensates sufficiently, for not having different wire diameters. That's a big effect. May I add I too have long experience in engineering and instrument design, and also have built large quantities of chassis with this springing, all worked. When I suggest a method, I know from practical experience that it works, and make the suggestion a simple as possible to aid newcomers. I realize that the net effect has been shown to be very good, either as the CLAG implementation or Varney's/yours. And I wonder whether, as seems likely, the CLAG and your implementation, with the extra spring, are or are not actually functionally identical, although superficially they may seem so. My only interest and concern is knowing HOW it works. Only then can you make any meaningful adjustments to alter the characteristics, and in the right direction. A question which I still have, which perhaps you can shed some light on, is as follows. The beam rigidity aspects of either system apparently tend to partially transfer an up motion of one wheel, through the intermediate fulcrum, into a lesser down motion of an adjacent wheel. So if this is good for an x-6-x wheel arrangement, why is it also then similarly good for an x-8-x arrangement? Clearly the up and down motion pressure of adjacent wheels would match the shape of a single track distortion for the 6 coupled passing over the distortion, but not then in the case of the 8 coupled chassis. And then the same issue arises if the 8 coupled chassis is compared with a 10 coupled one. Your thoughts? Andy __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bertiedog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:06 pm Springs on cars are adjusted and changed all the time, only a bog production car would have no changes. each set up does a different job, my father and I built many rally and hill climb cars, each had multiple set ups for each special use, even having air dampers with variable pressure. All springs relate to the job, and require adjustment to get the right results, that's why leaf springs are adjustable by removal or addition of leaves, various thickness's, and sets of various shackles. My own classic Austin has a custom set designed by myself. On 0-8-0 or 0-10-0, I simply would not fit the wires method but use compensation beams split into two units and in the case of an 0-10-0 spring the centre separately on an OO model. I built GER Decapod in P4 with springing, and that had all coils, with two compensation units. I know from long experience with live steam 5 inch gauge that springing has to be adjustable, springs settle for a start!.. and needs fine tuning to get the best ride. Even with the minute movement on OO, the wire will sag with age, and must require re-setting, which with the shackle spring can be done in seconds. The CLAG outline works well, and the suggested positions for fulcrums work, but it is all non adjustable, if it is wrong, you would have to start again, moving the fulcrums, but with adjustment you would cure it in seconds. I design simple solutions I know work, with adjustments where practical. It's great that CLAG have published the details, it suits them I am sure, but some solutions mentioned are complex, and the average modeller is not Mike Sharman, or capable of applying his methods. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bertiedog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:28 pm Actually I have a suitable Loco coming for conversion to proper springing, coming on to the workbench soon, after the Taff Vale, an early 1950's brass Japanese NYC Niagara, un-marked with maker, but believed to be an early Tenshodo that was made before the days of springing such models. It was bought from the States from a closed shop clear out, un-used, and stored away for 40 odd years. It runs fine, but baulks at poor track, due to the rigid design, so is worth a re- build to add full springing following the Varney springing layout. By the way the Super Pacific product was about the only item from Varney that did work well, a lot of the range was poor in design, somewhat crude, and cheaply made. The brass Niagara is well detailed , with stamped parts rather than etched , but to a very fine standard. The only let down is the lack of any springing at all, bar a coil spring on the lead bogie, which frankly does little to keep the thing on the track. A saving grace is that it has near RP25 profile wheels, albeit with sharper flange shape, years before the NMRA standards were mooted. I will start a new thread when the work is under way. Stephen, BACK TO THE BUFFALO!! __________________________________________ Comment posted by Miss Prism on Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:24 am Bertiedog wrote: The spring wire is still loose over the axle boxes and is not attached in any way to them, or to the fulcrums, I'm trying to understand the first diagram you posted, Stephen. Is the spring at the left-hand outer fulcrum point constrained in the longitudinal axis or not? In the second diagram, what was the ballpark dimension achieved for the length between the beam/coil attachment point and the head of the adjuster bolt? Btw, I hope Buffalo will say if he feels his thread is being 'overly diverted' - I'm sure the Mods could move the recent CSB postings to a separate thread if he wished, and it might be good forum order to do so. ('The CSB thread'?) __________________________________________ Comment posted by LNWRmodeller on Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:25 am London Road Models produce an etch of CSB "adaptors" to fit onto their hornblock bearings (and anybody else's with a 4.0mm OD lip). The etch includes chassis mountings, fixed single hole, fixed mutiple hole and screw adjustable types. A scan of the etch and a pdf file of the instructions can be found in the price list section of LRM's website (hosted by the Scalefour Society) at http://www.londonroadmodels.co.uk. The CLAG website provides a downloadable Excel file which is a great aid in calculating the locating points for the CSB chassis mountings, wire diameter, wire type, etc. I would strongly recommend that anyone considering CSB's look at the CLAG site and the LRM items before drawing any final conclusions from the postings on this topic. Jol Wilkinson (with apologies for the continued hijacking of this topic, but it's only about GWR locos anyway __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bertiedog on Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:41 am Miss Prism wrote: Bertiedog wrote: The spring wire is still loose over the axle boxes and is not attached in any way to them, or to the fulcrums, I'm trying to understand the first diagram you posted, Stephen. Is the spring at the left-hand outer fulcrum point constrained in the longitudinal axis or not? In the second diagram, what was the ballpark dimension achieved for the length between the beam/coil attachment point and the head of the adjuster bolt? Btw, I hope Buffalo will say if he feels his thread is being 'overly diverted' - I'm sure the Mods could move the recent CSB postings to a separate thread if he wished, and it might be good forum order to do so. ('The CSB thread'?). The wire is looped around a pin or bolt, and soldered or crimped to itself, loosely mounted, in other words and allows the wire to move in arc restrained by the loop. This movement is very small indeed, a matter of a couple of degrees at extremes of movement. The adjusting bolt is usually about an inch of 8 or 10 BA, what ever is to hand. I set the spring to just tension with the nut at the farther end and simply tighten till the ride height is correct for the weight, and then test run.Most of the locos weight is taken as per the CLAG CSB calculations. From that point it behaves the same as any spring wire beam suspension, although I am sure a mathematical analysis will indeed reveal differences, friction, effective fulcrum positions moved,etc., etc., if I had the time and inclination, I would work it out in mathematical terms, but that's not what I was after, I want a simple system that works, as this method does, as does the full CLAG method I am not stopping anybody from using the CLAG figures or buying in full commercial implementions of it, just pointing to another alternative. I take no credit for the way I do them, and I do not sell any item whatsoever in connection with it. Stephen. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bertiedog on Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:47 am To get out of Buffalo's thread I will post on CSB separately this morning, As I said.......... Back to the Buffalo..... Stephen. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:37 am Miss Prism wrote: Btw, I hope Buffalo will say if he feels his thread is being 'overly diverted' - I'm sure the Mods could move the recent CSB postings to a separate thread if he wished, and it might be good forum order to do so. ('The CSB thread'?) Bertiedog wrote: To get out of Buffalo's thread I will post on CSB separately this morning, As I said.......... Back to the Buffalo..... Feel free to hijack . I've found it very instructive and, together with the CLAG and LRM material, it has helped me clarify my understanding of the CSB approach. Of course, it probably does warrant a new thread, but it would be simple enough to put in a link back to the start of this CSB discussion. It may be a bit of a fiddle for the mods to move a whole load of posts. I've put a link in the 'index' in the first post of this thread. I'll get back to the Buffalo as soon as I have something to show, perhaps even a springy chassis LNWRmodeller wrote: London Road Models produce an etch of CSB "adaptors" to fit onto their hornblock bearings (and anybody else's with a 4.0mm OD lip). The etch includes chassis mountings, fixed single hole, fixed mutiple hole and screw adjustable types. Thanks, Jol. Yes. I have been looking at these and found the instructions very useful, but I think I will probably use a simple arrangement based on handrail knobs or similar. Nick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:38 pm Stephen's new CSB thread is at http://www.rmweb.co....t=48546&start=0. I'll continue to follow it with interest. Nick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:33 pm Well, I think I have worked out my fulcrum positions, now I just need the courage to drill the holes where the sums tell me they should be -- there really should be a 'grossly over-confident' smiley here but I can't find anything suitable In the meantime attention has turned to fitting the main parts of the body and then some of the detail castings. The first problem to arise was that the cab floor is about 1.5mm too long. It was not possible to fit the tanks and bunker in their correct positions with the cab and floor in place. After a while I realised that this floor is intended for both the open and closed cab variants, the closed cab being appropriate for the pannier conversions. The kit contains an etched cab back for the closed cab and a w-m bunker front for use with the open cab. The cast bunker front is, of course thicker than the etched brass and the floor must be trimmed to allow for the difference*. I also found the floor needed some work to get it to fit correctly over the rear splashers but, once this had been done, the cab and floor fitted properly between tank and bunker. * Edit: WARNING, if you are following this, don't cut the cab floor until you are happy with the cab position and alignment of handrails (see below). I did, and my cab floor is now too short See later post This led to the next problem: The tanks, cab and bunker are now placed in their intended positions, nothing is fixed yet, and the width of the 'doorway' is reasonably close to that in both of the drawings in Russell. However, it appears that the cutout in the footplate at the top of the steps is a bit too big. I also suspect that on the prototype it was less rounded with squarer corners. In the photo above, it looks as though the bunker actually overlaps the cutout, but it's not that bad. There is a small amount of movement in the bunker and it can be fixed to avoid the overlap. The real problem is that there is not enough room to drill a hole for the lower end of the hand rail. I'm not sure of the best solution yet, although comparison with photos suggests that the cab front is perhaps an inch or so too far back and there is some variation in the position of the tank/boiler front relative to the buffer beam. Perhaps it will be possible to take a little off the back or the tanks and/or the locating surfaces under the smokebox saddle, to enable the cab to move forward by just a small amount. Next installment when I've solved this one or made progress on the springy bits. Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bertiedog on Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:11 pm I have been discussing today very, very, extensively the CSB and the CLAG website details with my friend David, who started my using the wire system in the 1970's. and can I suggest one point to help ease the fitting of the whole CSB system as outlined by CLAG , and that is to have adjustable fulcrum points. My friend had not previously seen the CLAG calculations, but suggests, (as I did), after reading through them that they are followed exactly as to the position on the top of the fulcrum points, but to drill the holes slightly lower down and fit the screw mounted fulcrums I suggested on the other posting. They would be say 8/10 BA bolts, screwed in to the side frames, with a "Blade" soldered in to the screw slot. This would be the thickness of the slot, about 25/30 thou, and about double the width of the head. The area that touches the head could be recessed to get the end of the blade wider, to make the actual fulcrum point in contact with the wire. The top edge could also be chamfered to a knife edge to minimise friction. Once screwed in, but not tight, it will be possible to move the fulcrum pivot point backwards and forwards by about 4mm or so, albeit with slight,(forget it!) up and down movement as well. If the figures from CLAG are correct then the blade will be vertical, and any adjustment very small. He suggests that the screws could then be sealed with a drop of loctite, or with a thicker frame, a grub screw could be inserted in to the outside of the same hole to lock it. With the double framed Buffalo, a full nut could be used on the inner frames outside without showing. I notice that for simplicity, the CLAG group suggest the use of handrails knobs and these make the use of a keeper for the hornblock un-necessary. If the adjustable bolts are used the keeper plates will be needed( or a keeper wire etc., or small wires across each hornblock to retain the wheel sets from dropping out.. The fulcrum positions and the suggested wire sizes would remain exactly the same as the CLAG calculations, no change whatsoever, and no coil spring added to the ends, and therefore no experimentation at all, but there will be a method of adjustment should it need it. Both David and I feel that the chances of designing a wire and position to work by pre calculation first time is a long shot, he is a qualified engineer, as I am, and find the idea of designing the springs as a working system first time out very intriguing....... For a start you would need accurate scales, and scales able to read individual down pressures on each wheel..... but in the real world you will have to measure the total weight reasonably accurately, and the near symmetrical layout of the Buffalo comes to the rescue.....estimates will do. If you are into reading each wheel pressure to the track, try to buy old Post Office phone relay contact setting scales, they are like probes and can measure from 0 to 5 grammes, or 0 to 10 grammes. For the total loco weight kitchen scales should do. In practice I would do the whole design a bit light by a few grammes, and give myself the leeway to add the final bit of ballast to get the suspension to ride level. Hope this helps, I would still add the coils, but............... Stephen. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:37 pm Thanks for the additional thoughts on adjustable fulcrums, Stephen. The main reason I haven't drilled the holes yet has been the different positions depending on whether these or handrail knobs are used. I'll make a decision by the weekend. As to retaining the hornblocks, that's not a problem as the High Level ones already have holes for a retaining wire. Both David and I feel that the chances of designing a wire and position to work by pre calculation first time is a long shot, he is a qualified engineer, as I am, and find the idea of designing the springs as a working system first time out very intriguing....... Agreed, it's all very hypothetical until the complete model has been built. I can make a reasonable estimate of the total weight and it should be possible to get an even weight distribution over the three axles, but I can't be certain until it is built. As you say, the compact and symmetrical layout of the Buffalo should help. Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bertiedog on Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:11 pm The pigs to spring are Atlantics*, they pitch fore and aft, and have to have the bogies "in the loop",...... and the easiest are Decapods, big easy footprint!.....another awkward one is the Brighton 042 Gladstone, very difficult to get right. Big overhangs at the front and back spell difficulties, and Cramptons are best left to Mike Sharman. With Gladstone, I used coil sprung wires over the drivers, and separate wires over the trailing wheels with a single extra spring in the middle, pulling on an equalising beam.....That meant three adjustable screws on the drag beam, and the loco (00) ran like a dream. *I should also add any 2-2-2-2 LNWR Webb design, like Teutonic By the way, the idea of wires strung along the axleboxes is older than Varney, I have a 2-8-0 chassis, with 6 volt motor, rumoured to have been built by, or inspired by, one J Ahern, which has spring wire along each side, running on tubes over the axles. Believed to date to the late 1920's or very early thirties. Agreed, it's all very hypothetical until the complete model has been built. I can make a reasonable estimate of the total weight and it should be possible to get an even weight distribution over the three axles, but I can't be certain until it is built. As you say, the compact and symmetrical layout of the Buffalo should help. Keep a little ballast weight back, design to get it about right, and then load the weight till correct............ Stephen. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:53 pm I'm leaving further thought about the chassis to the weekend. This evening I've been resolving the problem with the cab position so that there is enough room to fit the handrails. This has been achieved by filing a small amount away from: the inside of the rear of the smokebox saddle where it fits over the front locating plate on top of the footplate the rear of the tank where it meets the cab the inside of the front of the bunker where it fits over the rear locating plate on top of the footplate Together, these have given just enough room for the handrails whilst keeping the boiler front and bunker rear in acceptable positions. Now, this reveals the mistake I made earlier The cab floor is now too short and will need some re-shaping and filling of gaps to get it to fit properly. I'll post more pictures once this has been resolved and the cab attached. Nick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:59 pm The cab front has now been fitted and the handrails added. I noticed from the prototype photos in Russell that these handrails are attached to the footplate by a small ferrule (right word?) at the base. Conveniently, this helps to overcome the problem of the recess in the footplate being a bit too wide and too rounded. Soldering a short piece of 1/32" brass tube over the handrail wire to represent the ferrule added a bit of strength to the join and avoided the need to drill holes that would have been too close to the edge of the footplate. Now, dealing with my self-inflicted cab floor problem has opened a new can of worms. The kit provides a floor visible in this earlier post. The floor is raised about 3mm with spacers provided on the etch. At a quick glance, this raised floor seems to correspond with the Maskelyne drawing and several of the photos in Russell. However, after some more study of the photos, I have come to doubt the existence of a raised floor Firstly, I noticed that several of the pannier conversions did not have a raised floor. A fascinating article entitled "Working on 'Tankies'" by Bob Crump in GWRJ 66 mentions that the older Dean designs "...had very cramped footplates with sandboxes just inside the entrance on either side." There are further details about their operation that are well worth reading even though it does not refer specifically to Buffalos. Returning to Russell, these sandboxes are visible in fig 247 and, once you know what you are looking for, it is clear that many of the other photos, including that of 1176 with saddle tanks (fig 231) also show these sandboxes. Often, posed photos of engine and crew show the fireman standing on the sandbox so that he is visible behind the driver. The clearest photo of all is a high angle shot of an 850 class in fig 301 where the sandbox can be seen in the bottom left of the picture. Incidentally, the cab height of the 850s is the same as the Buffalo, which might be taken to suggest they had similar floor heights.. All this leads me to believe that there never was a raised cab floor. Perhaps the answer will be to fix the floor piece with its etched wood pattern directly to the floor and to add the extra sandboxes. Incidentally, the rod linking the two sandbox levers represented on the bunker front casting appears to be a rarity. So far, I have only found one example in fig 237 in Russell which shows 1600 in early pannier form. The Bob Crump article also refers to the need to operate both handles together. Another problem with the bunker front can be seen in the above photo. The coal hole is represented with the side rails and door finishing at the raised floor height. Perhaps the answer here would be to extend the rails and carve out a hole below so that it is modelled in the open position. Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by Miss Prism on Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:31 pm Nick - I suspect we'll never get to the bottom of the 'floor business', if you'll excuse the pun. Certainly the sandboxes do feature prominently in the side views. My feeling is that the floor, whatever it was, was not at the top of sandbox level, because I think that would be too high to get to the firebox door. Having said that, and comparing views and drawings of the contemporary Metro tanks, I'm inclined to think there was some sort of rudimentary planking floor. Such a rudimentary floor might be say, 2" or 2.5" thick??? __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bertiedog on Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:17 pm The floor may depend on where it was serviced, Wolverhampton, or Swindon, etc, who delighted in perverse alterations to each others work. Most was replaced on a regular basis by local fitters, and the wood used was usually oak or ash, although I do not have evidence of exact GWR practice to hand. Usually, by which I mean other companies, wood was about 3 inches thick, with cross battens underneath to raise the floor from any water gathering, the battens were loose to pattern needed, with boards coach bolted on. Stephen. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Aug 02, 2009 11:48 am Miss Prism wrote: Nick - I suspect we'll never get to the bottom of the 'floor business', if you'll excuse the pun. Certainly the sandboxes do feature prominently in the side views. My feeling is that the floor, whatever it was, was not at the top of sandbox level, because I think that would be too high to get to the firebox door. Having said that, and comparing views and drawings of the contemporary Metro tanks, I'm inclined to think there was some sort of rudimentary planking floor. Such a rudimentary floor might be say, 2" or 2.5" thick??? Thanks for this. Yes, I agree, a simple planked floor, perhaps fitting around and between the sandboxes seems the most likely. Bertiedog wrote: The floor may depend on where it was serviced, Wolverhampton, or Swindon, etc, who delighted in perverse alterations to each others work... There certainly was variation within and between similar classes. The sandboxex themselves seem to vary in size and position. Nick ps. see also discussion here on the Q&A pages __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Aug 10, 2009 11:44 pm Over a week since the last update! During that time, the chassis has come together quite well and the CSB appears to be working. I've had endless fun just prodding the chassis and watching how it all works The outer spring mountings are Gibson medium handrail knobs with the longer knobs used on each hornblock. For the fulcrums between the wheels I adopted Stephen's adjustable idea and again it seems to have been a success (thanks Stephen ). The adjustable fulcrums were easily made from 12BA cheesehead screws with a blade of brass soldered into the slot. The resulting chassis is well balanced with a level footplate and rolls along quite freely It will probably require a heavier wire spring once the full weight is on it. The chassis spacers supplied in the kit left the frames closer together than I liked and would have required almost 2mm of spacers on each axle as well as leaving little room for the springs and gearbox inside. So, I filed a little off the P4 spacers and used these instead. I chose a High Level Road Road Runner 54:1 gearbox which sits between the frames and leaves plenty of room for the springs to work. With this gearbox the 1220 motor can be mounted vertically and so the cutout in the base of the boiler can now be filled in as the motor is completely within the firebox area . So all was going well and I was hoping that this post would include pictures with the rods attached and quartered and running in on the rolling road. I had reached the stage where the quartering was probably as good as it was going to get and all that was needed would be a slight tweak with the broach to remove any remaining tightness in the crankpin holes. The cranks supplied in the kit are the usual Gibson plastic variety. The pins were fitted with a drop of Loctite 243 and the cranks fitted to the axles with a little Loctite 603 and then left overnight to harden. The next day, I was surprised to find that the cranks were still loose Now maybe I was not thinking too logically and considering all possibilities, because I immediately assumed that the Loctite had failed, perhaps because of some surface contamination from stray oil after the initial gearbox testing. So, I lightly knurled the outer part of each axle, cleaned everything with IPA and, when dry, reassembled one side with more Loctite. The next morning I was even more surprised to find the cranks were still loose It was only when setting up the photos for this post that I noticed the real problem. All six cranks had cracked in the same place, and most of them have signs of the crack extending beyond the axle hole towards, but not yet reaching, the pin. The cracks can be seen in the next photo: So, time for a rethink Suggestions on where to go from here will be very welcome. Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by LNWRmodeller on Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:55 am Nick, I've no doubt you'll get a variety of advice, including machining new ones from rare metals. You could start by asking Colin Seymour of AG to supply some more. Then, carefully ream out the axle holes slightly with a 1/8" parallel reamer, so that they are an easy push fit onto the axle. Fit them using a suitable retainer adhesive - I don't know if Loctite 243 is correct for plastics. According to their website, Ultrascale supply 603. I suggest you check the Loctite website. Jol __________________________________________ Comment posted by Miss Prism on Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:32 am Nick Not sure about machining new cranks from, err, 'rare metals', and I agree with Jol about trying again with another AG set - failing that, you could investigate Martin Finney's outside crank etch, which is a 3-layer-laminate, but I think that crank etch might be for turned down 2.5mm axle ends, so would require quite a bit of careful jigging, drilling and reaming etc to get them all the same. I think Martin's cranks will at least be a better overall size and shape. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bertiedog on Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:05 pm I have dropped you a PM about the cranks Stephen __________________________________________

Buffalo WorkBench by buffalo original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ This page covers my detailing work on an old Airfix 14XX body mounted on a High Level chassis. These posts have been extracted from my workbench thread on the old RMweb, where they were mixed in with the Buffalo build. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:21 pm While I ponder the design of the CSB and decide on a new gearbox for the Buffalo, here's one I prepared earlier. At the start of the thread I mentioned several other projects that have been occupying corners of my work bench. One of these was an Airfix 14xx on a High Level chassis, something that appears to be quite a popular subject on RMweb. As the chassis build has been covered elsewhere with an early contribution by craigwelsh (http://rmweb.co.uk/f...&t=2571&start=0) and more recently by Knottyjohn (http://www.rmweb.co....t=46044&start=0), I'll just focus on some of the detailing work on the old Airfix body. The idea here was to take a cheap Airfix body, picked up on eBay, and to try to create a representation of a 48xx as running in their early years during the mid to late 1930s. As a prototype, I chose 4836 which was built in August 1934 and is known to have been at Bristol in 1938. The modifications entailed removing the top feed, as none of these were fitted before 1944, and the whistle shield and bunker steps which first appeared only on the last fifteen examples built in 1936. Basic detailing was done with the usual Mainly Trains detailing kit which, by itself, provides significant improvements to the appearance of the model. Further detailing involved the cab interior, lamp irons, brackets on the bunker for holding the fire irons, lance cock, replacement tank fillers and vents, and boiler wash-out plugs. Inspired by CK's addition of sanding gear operating levers to one of his panniers (http://www.rmweb.co....art=725#p620976), i thought I might try something similar. Since these photos were taken, 4836 has been painted, lettered and numbered, and has had some initial trials on the chassis. A few small details including the cab windows and some light weathering are needed to complete the body. All went well running in the chassis on smooth DC, but as soon as I put everything together with a DCC decoder, she would run for while, then throw one of the drivers out of quartering. My suspicion is that the vibration from all those square waves and back-emf are just sufficient to overcome the stiction between wheel and axle. I'll have to remove the loose driver(s) and use some loctite to overcome this. Photos of the near complete model to follow when I get a chance. nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by Knottyjohn on Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:21 pm Hello Nick, Thanks for posting the photos of your 14XX/48XX Airfix body here. While I've pretty much finished the chassis for mine, I've not yet done much to the body apart from added new handrails to the bunker and cab, so it's good to see how you have progressed with yours. It looks good so far. John __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:41 pm As promised, a couple of photos of 4836 in her current state. Cab windows, handrails, sand pipes, and a little more light weathering, etc to be done once the quartering issue if fixed. Those who know their GWR may question the tank side lettering on an engine built in August 1934 In which month did the shirt button roundel made its appearance in? I don't know, so in my world it was September or later, as I much prefer the earlier style Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by David Bigcheeseplant on Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:57 pm You may want to paint the top of the tanks and spashers black rather than green, as this was GW practice. David __________________________________________

Buffalo WorkBench by buffalo original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ This is the third page of the Buffalo build copied from the old RMweb. I have removed the sections on my 14XX/48XX and these will appear in a separate entry. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:32 pm Thanks for the comments I, too, had wondered about the lifting rings, Nick. Since you raised the question I went back to the photos and drawings in Russell, and it turns out that one of Stephen's suggestions is correct. There is a third lifting ring at the rear centre. It's obscured by the safety valve lever in a couple of the photos, but the drawing by J. N. Maskelyne (fig 233) shows it clearly. Once you know where to look it may be just visible, with the eye of faith, in a couple of the photos. Nick, did you make your own rings for the 1854s? It looks like I'll have to make at least one for the Buffalo, but I'm not entirely convinced about replacing the front ones as they are one of the better parts of the tank moulding on the Gibson kit. Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bertiedog on Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:02 pm I don't think they had lifting rings on my next project, B&E no 71 Saddletank on Broad Gauge!!!..darn good steps though.... Bristol Exeter tank rm.jpg (97.66 KiB) (Picture in Public Domain due to age) __________________________________________ Comment posted by yachtie on Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:04 pm Yes, Nick! I made the rings by winding brass rod around a small soldering iron bit (cold!), snipping off a series of rings then soldering the join. SEFinecast/Wills provided split pins in their kits to use as handrail knobs and I had masses of those in the 'spares' box, so I used them to hold the rings. I cut a small square of brass for the base, drilled a hole and Robert's your Uncle!!. 2009_07080104.JPG (45.5 KiB) Now I've seen the photo, it might just be a bit overscale but looks OK on the model!! I rushed them (8 hours with other bits and pieces too!) for two locos and measured by 'eye'! Won't be doing that again!! Nick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:17 pm Western Star wrote: To add to the fun... The 2021 class had saddle tanks made at Swindon and at Wolverhampton - one works provided the lifting rings with mountings which were "vertical" and the other works used fittings which were "horizontal".... unfortunately I cannot remember which was which| The photos in Russell don't help either! At least two are claimed to be as built at Wolverhampton and these have the two different types of ring alignment. Nick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:21 pm Bertiedog wrote: I don't think they had lifting rings on my next project, B&E no 71 Saddletank on Broad Gauge!!!..darn good steps though.... You've got a Taff Vale S class to finish first, Stephen, but I'll certainly be looking forward to seeing the B&E build Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bertiedog on Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:08 pm buffalo wrote: Bertiedog wrote: I don't think they had lifting rings on my next project, B&E no 71 Saddletank on Broad Gauge!!!..darn good steps though.... You've got a Taff Vale S class to finish first, Stephen, but I'll certainly be looking forward to seeing the B&E build Nick The BE project is an old one, the body is nearly finished, part finished chassis, but no wheels at the moment, as at the time, Mike Sharman did some. My old broad gauge layout was lost in a move years ago, I only saved some track and buildings and the locos. The track, and wheels are to P4 principles, as per prototype. I will have to find out if there any 4mm broadgauge rail section suppliers these days, I had to have the rail especially drawn for the old layout, far to costly to be considered now. I may use flatbottom rail with the tie bars, as most broadgauge was deeply ballasted around the rail anyway. I have not been well for a while, but back to the Taff vale soon. Stephen. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:13 pm Bertiedog wrote: I have not been well for a while, but back to the Taff vale soon. Good to see you back in action tonight, Stephen, hopefully recovered from the flu? Broad gauge has long been one of those things I'd like to tackle. Maybe one of the convertible Buffalos, though I do like the various 4-4-0Ts that ran on the B&E and SDR. Nick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:46 pm Not a great deal of progress on the Buffalo since Monday as I've been concentrating on odd details when I've found time for modelling. Buffer bodies have been soldered to the beams. I quite like the Gibson sprung buffers as the end cap inserted into the rear of the body gives a positive location in the buffer beam hole. The holes needed opening out much larger than they had been etched, a straightforward job with a suitable sized broach. The short handrails and tank filler have been added, as have the handrails on the bunker sides. At this point, the discussion of lifting rings cropped up. So, encouraged by Nick's example, I made one up by filing a piece of 1/16" H section brass into a T section, drilling a hole through the web and filing to represent the curved shape of the bracket. A small ring of 0.4mm brass was inserted and the base was soldered on to the top rear of the tank. I now hope I can live with the moulded ones at the front... Whilst studying Russell's picture of 1601, I noticed a few other details that will need adding. There are more short handrails high up at the rear of the tanks, but no matching steps on the sides. There is a safety valve lever passing at an angle into the cab (What do these look like inside the cab?). There is also a small pipe running up the cab front, apparently from the top of the tank, situated to the right of centre. I wonder if this is some form of tank vent? The Maskelyne drawing of 1564 and the photo of 1176 show something of similar size just behind the chimney. Then there is the sight glass valve lever on the outside of the cab, a common feature of GWR engines of the period. So, a couple of photos of progress so far. As before, many of the parts are just resing in place. The dome and safety valve will need further polishing. As with the w-m castings, these look like the moulds are getting old as it took quite a bit of work to remove the lines caused by the mismatch between mould halves. The dome and water filler have a few tiny air holes in the castings, but nothing that a bit more polishing or a touch of filler won't fix. The chimney is borrowed from my Finney Dean Goods. As you can see, I've also made a start on the chassis with a couple of High Level hornblocks fitted. Unfortunately, I only have four, so will have to wait for more to arrive before I can finish this part. The second photo shows that there is some air under the boiler, although it won't be so obvious once the frames are in place. Nevertheless, I am beginning to wonder whether some representation of the inside motion might be required. Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by Brinkly on Sun Jul 12, 2009 8:25 pm Rather nice kit Nick, I do like the older GWR locos the Buffalo being one of them. They don't make them like they used to! Keep us posted. Nick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:13 pm Little modelling over the weekend as I've mostly been using the good weather to catch up on some external domestic work, guttering, soil stack, etc. A break from the Buffalo was probably a good thing, though, as Saturday began with the first cock-ups of this build. I began by adding the extra handrails just below the safety valves at the back of the tanks. My first mistake was drilling a hole for a handrail knob in the wrong place However, this was easily fixed and the hole was plugged with solder when I put the knob in the correct place. Hopefully, the error won't be visible, but you know what photos can be like... With the handrails attached and the smokebox/tank front soldered in place, I turned my attention to the chassis. I'm still waiting for some extra High Level hornblocks to arrive, but I thought I'd be able to get the middle pair aligned. The rear ones had already been fixed last week. So, the first task was to drill out the crank pin holes in the rods. Each pair of rods were drilled together using pairs of drill bits sunk into a block of wood to ensure that the distances between holes on each side matched. The holes in the front pair of rods went fine but, with the rear pair, a slight snagging of the drill bit tore the thin part representing the articulation joint away from the rest of the rod Careful inspection of the surviving and damaged part showed that the break occurred at an obvious weak spot. The rods are the typical two style components seen in a number of kits, especially for GWR engines. One side gives plain rods, the other fluted. The plane faces are half-etched to make the bosses stand out as a little thicker than the rest of the rod. The break was at the end of this half-etched section and there is a very short (c. 0.6mm) area where the thin material is not supported by the laminated backing. I know it was my fault but, at least, I can explain what happened -- that's my excuse, anyway Whilst thinking about repair options (it's not just a matter of adding a thin backing/strengthening piece), i went back to studying the photos in Russell. I had assumed that the plain type would be appropriate for most saddle tanks and the fluted might make an appearance on the pannier conversions. However, it turns out that the plain type with raised bosses only appears on some of the panniers, and usually at a late date. On all other Buffalos, both saddle and pannier, there is an earlier type of rod without raised bosses and with what Russell calls a 'marine type bearing' on the centre crankpin. This centre boss has a characteristically much more rectangular shape and one half of the bearing is held in place by a wedge or cotter pin. A real late-Victorian feature, and now that I've spotted it, I can't really build 1601 without it. So, there's the answer to my broken rod problem, I'll just have to make my own... Have I bitten off more than I can chew? Watch this space, Nick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:11 pm Brief update: Tonight I made a start on my replacement 'old-style' rods. Starting with a sheet of 10 thou (0.25mm) nickel silver and an offcut of the 18 thou (0.46mm) used in the kit etches, I made up a sandwich of two outer layers of 10 thou on the outside and one of 18 thou on the inside. The idea is that the outer layers will overlap the inner at the articulation joint. I've drawn up a sketch with all the main dimensions, based on a side-on shot of 1282 with pannier tanks but the older rods (fig 247 in Russell). Next comes the drilling and rough shape milling, but I'll need daylight to do that as the garage lighting and my eyesight are not up to it after dark Today's good news: Colin has sent me a new chimney It is, in fact, the one listed as 4M730 and is intended to represent a 633 or 517 chimney. Apparently, there never was a correct Buffalo chimney and the tapered one was always supplied with this kit.. The new one is quite a good match for the taller parallel chimney shown in the picture of 1601 (fig 230) and the drawing in fig 229. The only minor issue is that the casting is intended to fit on the smaller radius smokebox of the 633 and 517, so it will need a little adjustment to fit the larger radius of the saddle tank. Hopefully, this shouldn't be too difficult. Colin also included the missing part from the kit -- a 2mm pin-point axle, intended to be used to form the rivets. A bit late for that, but I'm sure I'll find a use for it one day, though maybe not as a rivetting tool So, many thanks to Colin for his continuing support Nick edit: fixed metric/imperial conversion __________________________________________ Comment posted by wagonman on Sat Jul 18, 2009 7:37 pm Bertiedog wrote: I will have to find out if there any 4mm broadgauge rail section suppliers these days, I had to have the rail especially drawn for the old layout, far to costly to be considered now. It's available from the Broad Gauge Society, but only if you're a member... Probably worth the cost of subscription as there are lots of other goodies too. Richard __________________________________________ Comment posted by Knottyjohn on Sat Jul 18, 2009 9:29 pm buffalo wrote: So, the first task was to drill out the crank pin holes in the rods. Each pair of rods were drilled together using pairs of drill bits sunk into a block of wood to ensure that the distances between holes on each side matched. The holes in the front pair of rods went fine but, with the rear pair, a slight snagging of the drill bit tore the thin part representing the articulation joint away from the rest of the rod Nick Hello Nick, Just catching up on this, sorry about the mishap with the coupling rods, I can see how that looks to be a little bit of a weak spot. I've nearly done that myself! Can I pass on a tip that might be of use next time? I don't use a drill for opening out the holes in the coupling rods. I have a single taper reamer, with a piece of masking tape attached part way up, reinforced with a dab of epoxy to stop it sliding around. This way I know that if I open up the hole in the coupling rods gently to just this point, it will then be a nice close fit on the spigot on the hornblock alignment jigs, and in turn (hopefully!) just about the right amount of clearance on the crank pin bush. I accept in theory if you do it this way, you could end up with one set of rods very slightly longer than the other. But I don't think this should be a problem, and if in doubt you could mark one set of rods with a blob of paint to indicate left/right. Hope that's of some interest. John __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:15 pm Thanks for the tip, John. I don't know why I didn't use a reamer for this in the first place as I would normally do so for other similar jobs Well, not much has happened in the last week other than several attempts to make the new rods. Two unsuccessful attempts were made before a third finally arrived at something like what I wanted to achieve. Here, I drilled all the holes in the laminated sheet before attempting any shaping. Once I was happy with the final shape, I used a reamer to open up the holes to fit the jig and the crankpin bushes. Earlier, I mentioned my intention to use a triple laminate. This turned out to be a bit too thick and did not allow the central boss to stand out prominently from the rest of the rods as it does in some photos. The final version used a double laminate with the 0.46mm sheet at the front and the 0.25mm behind. The centre boss was then added as a third layer of the thinner sheet. This allowed what will, I hope, be a fairly strong articulation joint where one 0.46mm piece is sandwiched between to 0.25mm pieces, and hinged on a piece of 1mm nickel silver rod. The result is shown below, complete with an attempt to represent the cotter pins and oil cups on the centre bush: Now the chassis construction can start at last. Today, I have prepared the High Level hornblocks and tack soldered them to the frames using my homemade jig: Finally, for today, another dry assembly showing the new chimney. I still need to adjust the radius at the base to get it to sit on the tanks but, to me, it looks the part. You may also just be able to make out the step treads added to the buffer casings. These still need cleaning up but I think they make a significant improvement to the plain buffers as supplied. The treads are small pieces, about 1.5mm square, of cross-hatched etched brass originally intended for cab fall plates. Nick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:29 pm Starting these posts with 'not much progress this week' seems to be becoming a habit Apart from some filling around the smokebox front to tank join very little visible progress has been made on the Buffalo. I think I mentioned earlier that I intended to make this my first attempt at a CSB chassis and, to that end, I've been estimating the final weight of the model (about 210 grams, I think), studying the relevant CLAG web pages (http://www.clag.org.uk/) and using their spreadsheet to decide on the layout of the spring supports. One side effect of this is that i will need to change my earlier intention to use a high Level Load Hauler Plus gearbox. Although it might be made to fit, I would prefer a little more room between my EM frames to experiment with the CSB, so I also need to decide which other High Level box to use. Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bertiedog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:38 pm Just read up on the CSB., (continuous springy beam) method of springing, and I would humbly like to ask, why re-invent the wheel?........ as the method is almost the same as Varney and Lindsay in the US adopted on the 6 and 8 coupled chassis they marketed on the Super Pacific in the late 1950's The method is the same for layout, determination of the fulcrums, but the UK CSM CLAG group somehow seems to have missed a very vital point, that this style of springing is fully adjustable, requiring no pre-setting of the locos weight. Any style of fulcrums can be used and any method of keeping the wire across the top of the axle boxes works fine. I use 11thou nickel plated steel guitar wire, which runs from fixed points behind the buffer beams, across each bearing, with "buttons".... small screws with an un-threaded area under the head....... as the fulcrums. Most of the time I endeavour to have the fulcrum half way, unless the weight of the loco is very oddly distributed. But now comes the vital part, and seemingly disregarded by CLAG, and that is what to do with the other end of the wire. It is crimped or soldered to a small coil spring, which is attached to a nut on a bolt running through the drag bar or any handy place at the back of the chassis. It becomes an adjustable shackle. untitled.JPG (18.97 KiB) The loco is placed on the track and the bolts tightened till the loco rises up to the correct running level. Some un-balanced designs may require extra wires to bear on the outer bearings if the loco ends up not level, but this is rare, most designs will be level straight away. I add a lock nut to the shackle bolt, which is usually 10 BA. You might need to experiment a touch with finding the right coil spring, one can be wound from the same or slightly thicker wire, or a small one about 15 turns about 1/2 inch long and 4mm dia usually does. It just needs two the same, but the adjustment will cover this as well. Really heavy locos, say a fully cast kit, may need a larger diameter wire, say 15/20 thou, and a stronger coil and 8 BA shackle bolts. I have a Varney Super pacific, with all the Kemtron extras, the Lindsay ball raced motor, and it is the smoothest loco possible, and runs on any junk 16.5 track!! It can handle the lot! bad joints, warped track, etc, and I have used the system on many chassis over the years. It would fit the Buffalo, and be invisible, but would need a rear attachment beam for the shackles. Stephen untitled1.JPG (26.48 KiB) __________________________________________ Comment posted by intelegence on Mon Jul 27, 2009 2:47 pm I don't normally reply to postings on (electric powered) steam models, and I must confess that I missed the "Varney" era due to my extreme youth (But I do have an old used interurban model that was supplied to me in an adopted Varney box) . Firstly, I don't believe the the CLAG team has laid any claim to being the original inventors of CSB's. Many of their comments on various lists have humbly referred to merely building on the work on others. Secondly, I thought the CLAG preference was to leave BOTH ends and all fulcrum points of the wire loose. Then the wire stiffness, (acting as a springy beam), as well as it's free sliding through each fulcrum, would tend to equalize theamount of bending over each axle, and hence automatically optimally balance the vehicle. But I'll defer to any reply that comes from CLAG's experts on that matter. But having replied to the assumptions posted, I would like to say that, as a past manufacturing industry professional, the thought of an "adjust on test" requirement on a design intended to be reproduced by others as simply as possible , seem to me to be a major retrograde step. Andy Reichert California __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bertiedog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:15 pm The spring wire is still loose over the axle boxes and is not attached in any way to them, or to the fulcrums, and the springing action is exactly the same as the un-sprung wire, and the extra adjustment is all that's added ironing out any need to pre-work out anything. All the dimensions suggested by CLAG work, it is only the addition of the coil spring that helps set-up and fine tuning. Some US chassis builders used two springs, one on each end of the sprung wire, but it was found that one worked just as well. These nothing complex here, just a wire and spring. Stephen. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bertiedog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 4:02 pm I have not got a suitable chassis under way at the moment to show the modified CSB method, the Taff Vale is an 040 and has end restrained single spring wires, one per wheel, bearing on the fulcrum point on top of the bearings, unfortunately more difficult to set up. The chassis is too short to fit the adjustable end springs. It could have a single wire as per CLAG, but as the wheel base and weigh is low a very thin wire would be needed, or a flat thin spring, along with being un-adjustable. Stephen. __________________________________________ Comment posted by intelegence on Mon Jul 27, 2009 4:06 pm I beg to differ slightly on that functionality. As I understand it, the CLAG version does not fix the ends, and therefore the wire slips and bends between each pair of fulcrums until just the loose wire curvature tensions match the axle weights and equilibrium occurs. An example of the increased effect of adding your two (fixed and sprung) ends is a slipping powered capstan. A power capstan works by an operator lightly pulling the loose end of the cable, hence slightly increasing the linear tension in the cable curved around the slipping drum, which in turn causes an increased inwards pressure towards the drum, and hence an increase in friction forces, which then allows the powered drum to yank the business end of the cable much harder. In your case, the spring acts as the capstan operator's pull, and the force of the extended spring is added to the overall downward force on the hornblocks. Not likely to be a big effect I expect, but then the loco weight divided by the number of hornblocks isn't much either. And the dynamic curvature tension changes in the wire when the loco is traversing bumps is pretty minute also. Without videoing your end spring possible movement, while the loco is travelling over bumps, it's a difficult assessment to make. But the spring tension could be a significant part of the dynamic forces acting acting on the hornblocks at intermediate wheel heights and could possible completely change the suspension operating characteristics vs. the fully loose CSB's. Andy __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bertiedog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 4:20 pm "intelegence" Firstly, I don't believe the the CLAG team has laid any claim to being the original inventors of CSB's. Many of their comments on various lists have humbly referred to merely building on the work on others. I did not say that CLAG originated it.......... But having replied to the assumptions posted, I would like to say that, as a past manufacturing industry professional, the thought of an "adjust on test" requirement on a design intended to be reproduced by others as simply as possible , seem to me to be a major retrograde step. . So.... all spring designs should work without adjustment, and each loco would need individual diameters to suit the weight? The only adjustment possible* on the beam is the diameter...unless other springs are added. Adding the coil spring eases matters all round. *without adjusting the fulcrum points, and consequent spring length I think that you may be over estimating the effect of the spring, it is the wire beam that takes the weight, not the coil spring, which is there to exert extra assistance to the springing. May I add I too have long experience in engineering and instrument design, and also have built large quantities of chassis with this springing, all worked. When I suggest a method, I know from practical experience that it works, and make the suggestion a simple as possible to aid newcomers. Nice 14xx ........back to the Buffalo yet? Stephen. __________________________________________

Buffalo WorkBench by buffalo original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ This is the second page of the Buffalo build copied from the old RMweb __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:46 pm yachtie wrote: ...Mine remain firmly in the box for the time being but it was nice to hear that Wagonman has joined the Buffalo club too.... your comment on my first attempts at kit-bashing is still in the forefront of my mind as I have finally started on my pile of 31 Diagram O13s so that the Buffalos will have something to shunt when finally started! Every brake is now doubly checked! Thanks for the comments on the details, Nick. I have a similar task on hold at the moment, a rake of assorted coal wagons from various north Somerset pits. Maybe you can inspire me to get on with those yachtie wrote: Nick, are you modelling a specific Buffalo or a 'generic' version? I haven't completely made my mind up yet, but as Russell has a good photo of 1601 and I know it was at Bristol in 1914, then it is as good a contender as any. I'm toying with the idea of switching the tank filler and dome to represent an S2 boiler, but 1601 had an S4 between 1897 and 1911 and an S2 from 1911 to 1915. At one of those rebuilds, I would guess it would have lost its lamp sockets. Notionally, I'm aiming for around 1904-6 so nothing quite fits but then, I wouldn't be the first person to bend history a little By the way, I ordered some of the LNWR socket lamp irons from London Road Models as recommend by Richard and Jol in your recent thread so they will go on the Buffalo as well. Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by wagonman on Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:21 am Nick I've got some Buffalo allocations, but they're for 1908. I'll give the Bristol area ones in case they're of interest to anyone: 735 Trowbridge 747 Trowbridge 964 Frome 965 Wells 1180 Trowbridge 1185 Wells 1232 Wells 1253 Trowbridge 1256 Bristol 1270 Bristol 1587 Bristol 1591 Trowbridge then Frome 1601 Wells then Bristol (this numberplate produced by CGW) 1612 Bristol then Wells 1619 Trowbridge 1621 Chippenham 1625 Wells 1632 Wells 1660 Chippenham My own model will represent the Box banker, whichever that might have been... Richard __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bertiedog on Wed Jul 01, 2009 8:39 am Nick , nice progress on The Buffalo chassis, If you do find a chart for smaller BA from 14 down, I would be interested, I have "Machinery" handbooks, but even older editions of this engineering bible do not cover the full range of BA, too specialist for them! I will have to look on the net further, beyond the commercial sites. From the photos it looks as if Scale Hardware are being practical and supplying nuts that are not exactly to formula for size, but the nearest practical. Tiny metric are also not listed in all the metric thread lists, as they change from what normal instrument engineering would use to Clockmakers sizes, the lists stop, often at 1mm only, not showing .8, .5, .3, .2 etc.. Unfortunately as only wristwatch makers use the super tiny stuff, it is really specialist, even beyond clockmakers suppliers like Walsh. And of course some remaining Swiss makers use their own thread standards any way, and they are not published. Stephen __________________________________________ Comment posted by pointstaken on Wed Jul 01, 2009 8:45 am In the latest issue of the "Eileen's Emporium" catalogue, 16BA screws, nuts, and taps are listed. Dennis __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bertiedog on Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:20 am Thanks for the reference on Eileen's, Dennis, I will check them out, does not seem to be on the net, but it is also the smaller BA,( or ISO metric), sizes I need, and I have traced a full list for the smaller BA sizes from the net, see below The Scale Hardware nuts and bolts at .5mm thread diameter would match between 19BA and 20BA, albeit with a different pitch, I used to use 20 BA for valve gear, which use to be made in steel cheesehead by Clerkenwell Screws of London. The BA chart may be worth saving for use by RM members, as mention of beyond 16BA is very, very rare. I am considering making a miniature thread chaser to produce some of the these sizes in the future, perhaps a conversion of an old Emco Unimat lathe that's spare. At the sizes involved the follower would have to be geared about 3 to 1 to be practical at these pitches, and I would have to make the matching taps as well, not too difficult, just time consuming. ba.jpg (52.3 KiB) Stephen. __________________________________________ Comment posted by yachtie on Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:14 pm buffalo wrote: " I'm toying with the idea of switching the tank filler and dome to represent an S2 boiler, but 1601 had an S4 between 1897 and 1911 and an S2 from 1911 to 1915. At one of those rebuilds, I would guess it would have lost its lamp sockets. Notionally, I'm aiming for around 1904-6 so nothing quite fits but then, I wouldn't be the first person to bend history a little " I did that with one of my SEFinecast 1854s but then noticed that the rivet detail was wrong ... SEF have a 3 section saddle whereas I now needed a 5 section. I chose to ignore the problem, so bending reality (Einstein eat your heart out! ) buffalo wrote: By the way, I ordered some of the LNWR socket lamp irons from London Road Models as recommend by Richard and Jol in your recent thread so they will go on the Buffalo as well. Nick Take care!! I thought the LRM LNWR sockets were 7mm scale not 4 I nearly fell into that trap too and continue to persevere with scraps of brass..... Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by wagonman on Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:24 pm yachtie wrote: Take care!! I thought the LRM LNWR sockets were 7mm scale not 4 I nearly fell into that trap too and continue to persevere with scraps of brass..... As all their kits are 4mm scale I would imagine their lamp sockets are too.... It's Laurie Griffin who does the 7mm scale version! Richard __________________________________________ Comment posted by LNWRmodeller on Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:29 pm wagonman wrote: yachtie wrote: Take care!! I thought the LRM LNWR sockets were 7mm scale not 4 I nearly fell into that trap too and continue to persevere with scraps of brass..... As all their kits are 4mm scale I would imagine their lamp sockets are too.... It's Laurie Griffin who does the 7mm scale version! Richard Richard, exactly, they are 4mm. The 7mm kits went to FourTrack many years ago and are now sold under the Dragon Models label. Jol __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:12 pm wagonman wrote: I've got some Buffalo allocations, but they're for 1908. I'll give the Bristol area ones in case they're of interest to anyone: Thanks, Richard, a very useful list. Any Bristol, Frome, Trowbridge or Westbury engine would be credible for my area. Unfortunately, none of the pictures of Buffalos on the B&NS or Cam Valley branch that I know of show the engine's number. Bertiedog wrote: The BA chart may be worth saving for use by RM members Thanks for posting this, even if some of the sizes are imaginary. I'll know where to look next time. yachtie wrote: I did that with one of my SEFinecast 1854s but then noticed that the rivet detail was wrong ... SEF have a 3 section saddle whereas I now needed a 5 section. I chose to ignore the problem, so bending reality (Einstein eat your heart out! ) Maybe not bending too much. Although the RCTS volume doesn't mention an specific examples of the S2/U3 combination, a number of 1854s were rebuilt with S2 boilers in the early 1900s when the 3-section tanks were in use. Some of these might well have received new tanks which would very likely have been of this type. On the buffalo it would also be necessary to remove the cast footsteps and add new ones in line with the tank filler. LNWRmodeller wrote: wagonman wrote: yachtie wrote: Take care!! I thought the LRM LNWR sockets were 7mm scale not 4 I nearly fell into that trap too and continue to persevere with scraps of brass..... As all their kits are 4mm scale I would imagine their lamp sockets are too.... It's Laurie Griffin who does the 7mm scale version! Richard, exactly, they are 4mm. Jol Thanks for the reassurance, hopefully they will arrive soon... Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by yachtie on Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:19 pm wagonman wrote: yachtie wrote: Take care!! I thought the LRM LNWR sockets were 7mm scale not 4 I nearly fell into that trap too and continue to persevere with scraps of brass..... As all their kits are 4mm scale I would imagine their lamp sockets are too.... It's Laurie Griffin who does the 7mm scale version! Richard Ooops!! Now that'll teach me to learn how to read more carefully!! Guess where my next order is going to be placed?!! Nick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:27 pm yachtie wrote: Guess where my next order is going to be placed?!! I hope he has plenty in stock as I ordered three sets (Buffalo, Dean Goods plus spare for as yet undecided next early GWR engine) Nick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:11 am While waiting for other bits to arrive, I've been looking at the main castings. The detail is quite good and they are very straight, unlike the first w-m kit I tried a long time ago. There is a fair bit of flash that will be easy to trim but there is a very prominent ridge along the top centre of the tank where the two halves join. This is going to need some serious filing and sanding. The line is one side of the join between mould halves. The mould line runs across the front and rear of the tanks and along the sharp bend where the tanks sides turn under. Cleaning this up will take some care, perhaps a bit of filler and a few of the trusy Archers rivet transfers as I'm fairly certain a few moulded rivets will disappear in the process. Photos below to give an idea what I am talking about. Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by wagonman on Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:21 am buffalo wrote: wagonman wrote: I've got some Buffalo allocations, but they're for 1908. I'll give the Bristol area ones in case they're of interest to anyone: Thanks, Richard, a very useful list. Any Bristol, Frome, Trowbridge or Westbury engine would be credible for my area. Unfortunately, none of the pictures of Buffalos on the B&NS or Cam Valley branch that I know of show the engine's number. Nick You're right, I can't find any actual numbers either, though there are several photos of Buffaloes on the B&NSR. The Bristol, Wells and Frome locos are the most likely suspects. I will dig out my B&NSR files when I return from my hols... I have just found some more notes I took at the PRO (now National Archives), this time for engine stoppages: it seems that our friend 1601 was stopped 31 July - 2 Nov 1905 at Bristol for a General overhaul and boiler change (not recorded by RCTS as it was the same type - S4); stopped again, this time at Swindon, 22 Mar - 24 Jun 1907 for another General plus boiler change (again S4). Presumably it was repainted into the new livery at this time? That kept it going until 16 Sept 1909 when it was stopped again at Bristol for what I've recorded as 'SG' - but can't for the life of me remember what SG was unless Short General? Anyone know the answer? Richard __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Jul 02, 2009 7:14 pm Thanks for that, Richard. Given your allocation and repair details and the fine photo in Russell, I'm now pretty certain I will build it as 1601. Any further info on the B&NS is always welcome. Enjoy your hols... I've now soldered the boiler and tank shell together and made a start on cleaning up all those mould lines. Still needs more work, but the basic shape is there: The smokebox door and tank fronts are going to need some fettling and filling. The next photo shows the casting resting in place. It's going to take some careful work to get it all flush and fill those gaps. From photos of the prototype, the large flat area at the front of the tanks is a very prominent feature of these engines as are the large, widely spaced rivets around the edge. Does anyone know what the lever to the left (right in the photo) of the smokebox door is? On the prototype it appears to be controlled by a thin rod that passes vertically down to, and probably through, the footplate. It looks like a possible candidate for removal of the cast representation and replacement by a brass pin, lever and rod. The next castings to receive attention will be those forming the bunker. Again, some flash but generally clean mouldings that will need minimal work to rectify slight offsets between the mould halves. The photo shows these with the worst of the flash removed. The bunker front has a representation of two levers linked by a cross rod. Presumably these are the rear sandbox levers? These are another candidate for replacement with separate brass fittings. Another point to note with the bunker is that, as supplied, it represents a later type with built-up fenders above the flare. The kit also includes an etched part for the coal rails which could be used in different ways, with and without the fenders.. In my case, the fenders will have to be removed because the photo of 1601 shows her with open coal rails above the flare. Without good prototype photos, the unwary could be caught out by the possible variety of bunker patterns on these engines I've also started looking at the brass castings for the boiler fittings. Most look fine, but the chimney is a later type. In the photo below, the supplied chimney is the brass one on the right. As you can see this is a tapered type and probably represents one of the later cast chimneys which didn't become widespread until after WW1. What I really need is something more like the one on the left. This is actually a w-m casting supplied with a Martin Finney Dean Goods. It represents the earlier variety of parallel-sided built-up chimney. I'll have to contact Colin and find out whether the Gibson part 4M735, 'GWR Buffalo/850 chimney. tall' is more appropriate or whether he had something else more suitable. Nick Edit: removed assertion that tapered chimney might be suitable for panniers. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Miss Prism on Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:26 am No Buffalo, saddle or belpaire, ran with a tapered chimney. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Jul 03, 2009 10:47 am Miss Prism wrote: No Buffalo, saddle or belpaire, ran with a tapered chimney. That's what I thought, but I hadn't looked to closely at the panniers so was hedging my bets on the possibility. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:51 pm I had a very quick email response from Colin about the chimney today. Apparently this one is 4M735, but he recognises that this is not the one we need for the saddle tanks, so is going to look into it. I've told him that there is no great hurry as I get the impression he is working flat out on other things, and I've plenty to amuse myself with before I need to fit the chimney. Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by Knottyjohn on Sat Jul 04, 2009 7:05 am I've just been catching up on this, Nick, looks like steady progress is being made, look foward to seeing more photos. I think I am getting more tempted to put my name down for one of the GWR 633 class kits from Gibson, seeing the work here on your kit. Cheers, John __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:38 pm A little progress over the weekend in between gardening: The ridge along the top of the tanks has been removed and those at the base have almost gone. All that remains to do is polishing with finer grades to get a nice smooth surface. The ends of the tanks are now quite flat and a start has been made on getting a good flush fit for the tank front and smokebox door. At the rear, the fenders or coal plates at the top of the bunker parts were removed with a fine saw. Fitting the four parts together was straightforward after a little work to clean up the effects of minor mould misalignments on the edges. Once built, the insides of the flared parts were carefully rounded to get something like the appearance of sheet metal at the edges. Again, it is almost there but needs a little more work. The bunker will fit over the rectangular plate holding the chassis fixing nut at the rear of the footplate. The smaller plate at the front is used to align the smokebox saddle. On the footplate, the splasher sides and tops have been added. The sides have a tab that fits into a rebate in the footplate thus making alignment straightforward. The tops are a little over-length and needed trimming after rolling to shape. A little more cleaning up of the residual solder and the footplate will be ready for the next stage. Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by JackBlack on Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:23 am That looks really great. You've done a really nice job, especially the splashers. The saddle tank looks really good as well. What's the chassis like? Cheers, Nick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:36 pm Thanks for your comments, Nick. The chassis is very basic, the only detail being the rail guards and a half-etched representation of the ashpan. No rivets, pipes, reverser levers and cranks, valvegear or other details. There is, of course, a reasonable representation of the brake gear. The frames appear in the photos of the etches at the start of the thread, and fitted into the footplate assembly in a photo about 3/4 of the way down the first page. You can also see part of them at the back in the photo below. I'll probably add some details but, with the outside frames and the saddle tank, the view between the frames is very limited. Hopefully, I'll be able to make a start on the chassis in the next couple of days. Today's photo shows the main parts placed on the footplate to give an impression of where this is heading. Nothing here is fixed yet. I've finished cleaning up the tank/boiler assembly. A few of the cast rivets at the top centre of the tank have been lost in the process as the moulding ridge was very prominent here and couldn't be removed without damaging them. No problem, I'll just have to get the Archer's out once the primer coat is on. They will be needed anyway as the photo in Russell of 1601 shows some fairly prominent rivets in the lower middle part of each tank section. The cab floor is sitting at the back of the mat because it will need some adjustment to make it fit. It appears to be almost 2mm too long as I discovered when trying to fit everything on the footplate with it in place. Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by Knottyjohn on Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:13 am Just been catching up on this again, think it looks like it's coming on well in the new photo look foward to seeing some more progress John __________________________________________ Comment posted by yachtie on Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:56 pm This is looking really splendid! I shan't be starting mine for some weeks yet but at the weekend I did a bit more to my 1854 saddles at the HobbyHolidays workshop. Amongst other things, I fitted the tank lifting rings and suddenly noticed that most classes of saddles and panniers have a complete set of 4 tank lifting rings. However, the Buffalo appears only to have had one pair, over the smokebox - as in the Gibson kit and the prototype photos in Russell etc. How on Earth did they lift the tanks off the boiler in this class - any ideas? Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bertiedog on Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:31 pm I had wondered about the fact there are just front lifting rings, I assumed there must be a matching pair at the back, or a single one at the top, as three chains would have worked just as well for lifting. Maybe they lifted the back with a wooden beam under the tank edges, formed to fit over the tank as it could not pass fully under due to the boiler. Perhaps there are ring attachment points in the cab, requiring the cab to be removed etc., first. Stephen. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Western Star on Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:09 pm To add to the fun... The 2021 class had saddle tanks made at Swindon and at Wolverhampton - one works provided the lifting rings with mountings which were "vertical" and the other works used fittings which were "horizontal".... unfortunately I cannot remember which was which| __________________________________________

I think the intention is that you put the bearings in the swing arms, so that the axle passes through the larger hole in the frames and so is allowed limited movement. The swing arms then constrain this movement to the near vertical and prevent any forward/backward movement. Seems to be a way of avoiding hornblocks. Nick

whoops, unintentional double post

I like the look of this, maybe it will encourage me to get on with mine. I've been experimenting with printing this Scalescenes kit at about 90% of full size so that I can fit it into a boxfile... Nick

That's a real beauty, and the bolts on the boiler clamp (or is it a tank support?) really do add something. btw, shouldn't there be a couple of 'boiler' bands on the firebox? I mention it because they should go underneath that angle piece between the firebox and tank (see this photo Nick

Great to see this here I remember finding the bay on gwr.org and really liking the concept of viewing the trains through the station. I, too, would love to see more. Nick

Hi Miss P, Thanks for the comments Yes, I'm sure it will take a while to find everything, especially while people are transferring stuff from the old site and getting used to the new ways of doing things. The 'archer' things are transfers, see this link I'm not really sure, but from photos that I've seen it was probably around 1905-10. Russell has a picture of 1176 dated 1910 still with saddle tanks, but with the raised panels on the bunker. Most of the pannier conversions appear with the raised panels. This seems to apply to other saddle/pannier classes as well, although he does show one picture of 1850 as a pannier in 1912 with what appears to be an infill plate attached inside the rails. I hope to do this over the next few days.... Nick

Buffalo WorkBench by buffalo original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:27 pm (NOTE: I've edited this post to remove the index section as, hopefully, we can do that a bit better using the new blog interface). After a few months of membership the excuse to start my own workbench thread has finally arrived. Today I received a small box containing an example of the long-awaited revival of the Alan Gibson kit range. You may be able to guess what it is from the title and my screen name I'll start describing the kit and the build in the next post. Expect to see various GWR items dated around 1900-1905 and 1930-1940 all of which will be EM, and some S&DJR items of similar dates, all of which will be P4. The GWR layout is under way but, so far, my only P4 track is a single GWR 44' 6" panel -- useful for standing the rolling road on, but of precious little use on the S&D. Like many others, the number of projects on, or near, my workbench grows much more rapidly than the completed projects on the layout(s). My excuse is that I still need to finish the tracklaying before it is worth having anything completely ready for running Don't expect anything too special but, with luck and your input, my modelling skills may improve over time. Nick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:50 pm So, here we go! The Gibson kit is, of course, a Buffalo or 1076 Saddle tank. This has long been one of my favourite GWR engines, and so I was very disappointed when, on my return to modelling after a twenty year layoff, I learned that Alan Gibson was retiring and the kits would no longer be available. So, a big thankyou to the new proprietors for starting the process of reintroducing the kits and delivering my Buffalo today I'm sure many of you will have built one of these in the past, but there appears to be no mention of this kit in the current incarnation of RMweb, so hopefully this will be of interest to a wider audience. So, what's in the kit? The image below shows the box, four etches and the larger w-m castings. These are accompanied by many separately bagged and numbered components in w-m and brass and a host of standard Gibson products including wheels, hornblocks, buffers, etc. Apparently the kit contains everying except a Mashima motor. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Jun 27, 2009 12:45 am First Impressions About thirty years ago I tackled a white metal kit with mixed results, but my recent experience of loco kits has been limited to a couple of examples of High Level chassis and a Martin Finney Dean Goods. Perhaps I've been spoiled, but this is an entirely different kettle of fish. No tabs and slots and few aids to alignment so it is up to the builder to ensure that everying is in the right place. The instructions remind me more of old Airfix plastic kits -- fairly brief and full of statements like 'attach part 25 to part 33'. Many parts are not named, leaving you to search the diagram for the part number without a clue where to start. The nickel-silver etches are 0.45mm sheet whereas the brass are 0.30mm. The half-etched tabs (insert technical term here) that attach the parts to the rest of the etched sheet are quite thick in both metals, almost to the point of needing a piercing saw rather than a sharp blade to cut them. So far, I've just about managed with a Stanley knife, but care is needed to avoid distortion. That said, the etches appear to be of good quality and need only minimal work to clean up any etching cusps. Outside frames mean a large number of rivets to deal with before any construction can begin. I have a rivetting tool that I don't get on with, so my normal approach is to use an old scriber which I insert in the half-etched hole and rotate in about a 4 inch circle (at the top end of the scriber). Three revolutions with mild pressure is enough for the rivets in the brass footplate, but the nickel-silver buffer beams and outside frames need considerably more effort. Also, for some reason, the half etched holes in the back of the buffer beams are much larger than those anywhere else. They are about 1mm diameter which makes it rather difficult to ensure that each rivet is actually centred in the hole. So far, I've done the rivets in the buffer beams and in the footplate, but the frames will have to wait until tomorrow. So, in some ways, a rather primitive kit, but I still think i am going to enjoy building it. There is also a reasonable amount of scope for adding extra detailing and making the result all the more personal. Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by nzovu on Sat Jun 27, 2009 4:30 am Looking forward to seeing this develop Nick, the Buffalos are one of my favourite locos too. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Knottyjohn on Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:36 am Yes, to add to this I'm looking foward to seeing how this loco progresses. I like this class of engine, and I'm glad to hear that some of the kits from the old Gibson range are being brought back on to the market by the new owners of the business. I wonder what else they might have in mind to release I've just recently finished a Gibson kit for the GCR Pom Pom that I bought from AG before he sold the business, not a bad kit but I did have a few moments with the fit of the firebox, boiler and smokebox. Still, not a bad kit at all and I'm pleased with the results. So, look foward to seeing more of this one. John __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:11 am Knottyjohn wrote: I wonder what else they might have in mind to release Currently, the Buffalo and 850 saddles (not panniers), and the S&DJR 7F and GER Y14/LNER J15 look to be imminent, see the 'kits' page at http://www.alangibsonworkshop.com/. Knottyjohn wrote: I've just recently finished a Gibson kit for the GCR Pom Pom that I bought from AG before he sold the business, not a bad kit but I did have a few moments with the fit of the firebox, boiler and smokebox. Still, not a bad kit at all and I'm pleased with the results. So, look foward to seeing more of this one. John From reports I've read/heard of other Gibson kits, that sounds about right. I don't expect building this one will be an entirely smooth process, but it should be fairly straightforward to make something presentable out of it. Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by Knottyjohn on Sat Jun 27, 2009 12:09 pm buffalo wrote: Currently, the Buffalo and 850 saddles (not panniers), and the S&DJR 7F and GER Y14/LNER J15 look to be imminent, see the 'kits' page at http://www.alangibsonworkshop.com/. That's interesting, thanks for pointing me towards that page, I'd not realised that the new Gibsons (if I might use that term) had progressed so far on looking into kit re-release. I've a kit for a SDJR 2-8-0 in stock to build since Noak were a lad and I can see the Pom Pom and GER 0-6-0 look popular as well. I might be tempted by a 633 Class 0-6-0 always had a soft spot for those engines, hmm have to give this some more thought. John __________________________________________ Comment posted by Mal on Sat Jun 27, 2009 12:23 pm I don't know if you are aware but a number of kits in the AG range are based on the old Premier range of kits the Buffalo being one of them. Premier kits dated from the early eighties and were white metal with an etched chassis. AG revamped the Premier range by replacing a large number of the white metal parts with etched brass while keeping the castings for the boilers,domes etc. From my experiance having built four of the original Premier kits they build into excellent models . Just before AG closed I obtained a set of etchings from his GW 850, which I intend to use to update an old Premier 850. Best of luck with the build I am sure you will end up with a great model. Malcolm __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Jun 27, 2009 12:47 pm Knottyjohn wrote: I've a kit for a SDJR 2-8-0 in stock to build since Noak were a lad I'm just a little bit jealous there, John. I've been dithering about putting my name down for one of the new ones. I'd really like one for my, as yet imaginary, S&D P4 layout but there are just too many other things in my build queue Still, I know there are others here on RMweb who are keenly awaiting delivery of one of these, so maybe someone will soon be showing us how it goes together mal wrote: AG revamped the Premier range by replacing a large number of the white metal parts with etched brass while keeping the castings for the boilers,domes etc. Thanks for clarifying this, Malcolm. There are some indications of earlier generations of the kit in the drawings with the instructions. For example, the buffer beams appear to have originally been w-m castings as the drawing shows what are either lugs on the back to aid alignment of the outer frames, or a representation of the angle bracket between beam and frame. In the etched components, there is little to aid alignment of these parts. Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by Kenton on Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:57 pm Good to see this kit back in production. I think I'll watch how the build goes then then it may be time to flex a card. I like the AG kits as they were though wonder if some modifications / improvements could have been made. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:35 pm Some progress over the weekend. The first task was forming the rivets on the footplate, outer frames and buffer beams. There are about 350 of these in total (just an estimate, I didn't count them all ) I also added a few to the lower steps as these are very noticeable on all the photos I have seen - incidentally, I'm using Jim Russell's 'Pictorial History of Great Western Engines', vol 1 as my main visual source, and the RCTS 'Locomotives of the Great Western Railway', part 5 for the technical history. Whilst studying the photos, I noticed several other details not present in the kit which I will attempt to add as I go on. After the step rivets, I also noticed that the brake cross shaft appears to pivot in bushes just above the lower steps, and there is a small access hole just in front of the bushes. I'll attempt to add both later, although it might have been easier to do it before attaching the frames to the footplate. A related detail is the large bolt or nut heads on the outside frames for each of the brake hanger pivots. Again, I'll try to add these later. A further detail is the shape of the front buffer beam. This is deeper below the buffers and shallower between them. I filed an approximation of this shape into the kit buffer beam before soldering it to the footplate and frames. There was enough room to do this because, despite being labelled with the same part number, one of beams in the kit is a little deeper than the other and so, presumably, is intended for the front. When I had finished the rivets, the frames had taken on a curve around both the vertical and horizontal axes which took some time to correct. More worrying was the fact that the top surface of the frames had acquired a banana shape along the edge that joins to the footplate, with the centre about 0.5mm below the ends. Not large, but enough to make a visible distortion in the footplate if not corrected. I'm not sure why this happened and hadn't noticed whether it was there before I started rivetting. However, there is a similar distortion in the inner frames but, again, I cannot be certain that this was present before I cut out the spaces for the hornguides. I don't know enough about stresses in sheet metal or the effects of the etching process to speculate further on this. If others can throw any light on this, it may be of interest to know that each frame is only attached to the sheet by two half-etched tabs, one at each end, with no intermediate support. Anyway, after some gentle pursuasion and a little filing, the outer frames were ready to be attached to the footplate, together with the buffer beams. There are half-etched lines along the underside of the footplate to aid alignment, and these proved very useful in getting the position of the frames correct. Buffer beams and steps were then added, followed by the strengthening pieces and retaining nuts that will be used to attach the chassis. The photo shows the footplate attached to the outer frames and buffer beams together with the inner frames spacers and rods which have been cut out and prepared for the initial construction of the chassis. The kit instructions talk about aligning everything by eye, but I will be using some homemade alignment jigs of the conventional type -- silver steel extended axles with the ends turned down to fit the holes in the rods, springs from an old retractable ballpoint pen and clamps made from chocolate box electrical connector innards. When I ordered the kit, I asked for a version with all axles sprung. At the time, I didn't think what this meant in terms of the kit, only what I intended to. As a result, I was supplied with a set of six Gibson sprung hornblocks which are a type that I've always thought are a bit fiddly and over-complicated. I already have some but have never used them. Recently, I've come to like the High Level hornblocks, so will probably order a set of these to use instead of the Gibsons. If I take that route, I might have a go at CSBs. Another note on kit contents. The instructions say "THE ONLY ITEM NEEDED TO COMPLETE IS A MASHIMA 1220 MOTOR" but later, in the list of parts, the word "Gearbox" is crossed out. At least this removes one decision. I have a High Level Load Hauler Compact+ waiting to be used in a Johnson 1P but, if it is a good fit, I will use it here and order another for the 1P. If not, I'll have to see which other High Level box will suit. By the way, one other item referred to in the instructions but no longer supplied (at least I haven't found it) is a pin-point axle to be used by those without other means of forming rivets Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by JackBlack on Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:52 pm This is looking very nice, I'm very interested to see how it turns out especially the white metal parts. A Buffalo would fit very nicely on my layout. Cheers, Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bertiedog on Sun Jun 28, 2009 11:46 pm The slight distortion of the side frames is "relief" of the stresses in the metal sheet by the riveting, even a light amount with pre etched holes will set off a bend in the stock sheet. The rivtetting can also add stress, again a bend results. Just bend back, with fingers, or in soft jaws, on a vice to straighten them up, test against a steel rule or glass plate. Once finished riveting, if it's really bad, you could anneal the sideframe, put the parts in a steel tray, fill with sand and lay the parts on top, and heat over a gas ring, the sand evens out the heat, let it cool off and then bend. in theory you could then re-anneal again, but life is too short to bother! I notice that you say they advise lining up by eye....not good enough.. make a quick wooden jig etc, and use rulers and straights to check everything as you go along. Which of the Gibson boxes did you get, they do two, an etched one and a cast brass version. The etched one is fiddly, but works well. Stephen. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:13 pm JackBlack wrote: This is looking very nice, I'm very interested to see how it turns out especially the white metal parts. A Buffalo would fit very nicely on my layout. Yes, I'll be very interested to see how the w-m parts fit together. I have only ever built (translate as made a pigs ear of) one w-m loco kit and that was 45 years ago Though I have had reasonable success with various wagon kits in the last couple of years since I took up modelling again. If the fit matches my initial impressions of the good quality castings in this kit, it should go together quite well...we'll see... As you know, the kit is a hybrid brass and w-m with n-s chassis and outer frames. I was pleased to find that the cab is in brass because the sheeting thickness is very visible on a w-m cab. There is also a choice of open and closed cab varieties. Perhaps surprisingly, the entire bunker is in w-m. At least this avoids any problems with forming the flares at the top of the bunker if it were made of brass. This may prove attractive to novice builders, or those that have only built w-m kits before. However, I must say that, though initially concerned about how it might turn out, my first attempt at a flared tender (a Finney 3500 gallon GWR kit) went remarkably well and the task is much less difficult than it seems. Bertiedog wrote: The slight distortion of the side frames is "relief" of the stresses in the metal sheet by the riveting, even a light amount with pre etched holes will set off a bend in the stock sheet. The rivtetting can also add stress, again a bend results. Thanks, Stephen, I had assumed it was something to do with stress relief, but don't have the background to be confident about its causes and effects. I was prepared for the bending in the plane of the sheet, i.e. the vertical and horizontal (lengthwise) axes, but was surprised by the bend around the third axis which left the top edge curved wrt the plane of the footplate. I was less surprised by the inner frames bending in this way because of the need to cut out the slots for the hornguides thus, it appears, upsetting the balance of stresses between the upper and lower parts of the frames. Fortunately, correcting these curves was fairly straightforward -- a combination of fingers, soft-nosed vice and a rolling bar, protecting the rivets with a layer or two of paper -- so I didn't need to resort to annealing. Nevertheless, I'll remember your advice should I encounter less tractable bending elsewhere. Bertiedog wrote: Which of the Gibson boxes did you get, they do two, an etched one and a cast brass version. The etched one is fiddly, but works well. Crossed wires here, Stephen. The gearbox is not supplied with the kit, although the instructions suggest that it used to be. This isn't a worry to me as I intend to use a High Level gearbox. In fact, an order for this and a set of hornblocks is, hopefully, wending its way northwards as I write. Tonight, I've added some of the minor detail I mentioned earlier. The brake pivot end bolts were represented by some 0.8mm A/F bolts from Scale Hardware. It might have been cheaper to use their imitation (non-threaded) bolts, but I only have the threaded variety. An expensive solution, but I didn't fancy trying to file six hex heads at that size. I've also drilled the holes for the brake cross shaft and inspection hole in the steps. I'll need to produce some little end plates to cover the shaft ends, then I hope to spring the shaft in between the steps so that it can be removed with the rest of the brake gear when the chassis is removed. Finally for today, the chassis (inner) frames have been tack soldered to their spacers to assess overall fit and alignment. The spacers have tabs that fit rather loosely into slots in the frames. These are good for rough alignment but no more. The instructions say that the downward projecting part of these L-shaped spaces should go towards the ends of the frames. This is fine at the front where this part of the spacer is about 7mm behind the buffer beam and so not easily seen from the front. However, at the back, this part of the spacer would be less than 2mm behind the buffer beam where it would be clearly visible and might not leave much room for fitting couplings. For now, I've chosen to reverse this spacer as I can find nothing that it might interfere with. Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by yachtie on Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:55 pm Hi Nick - I'm really delighted to have found this thread as I took delivery of two of these kits on Saturday morning! I was planning to take them up to Phil Atkinson's Chassis Building Weekend this coming Friday so I could use his MasterChassis to align everything - but the thought of getting all those rivets done beforehand has persuaded me to take an 850 saddle kit that has been grinning at me from my shelf for a year or so! So, I'll wait a while and see how you get on with yours! I have yet to select gearboxes so await your build with even greater interest ...... Nick (yes, another one!) Edit: It would be nice to see some photos of the extra detail you describe in the post directly above this one! I'm still very much a beginner so need every hint I can get..... __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bertiedog on Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:02 am Bertiedog wrote:Which of the Gibson boxes did you get, they do two, an etched one and a cast brass version. The etched one is fiddly, but works well. Crossed wires here, Stephen. The gearbox is not supplied with the kit, although the instructions suggest that it used to be. This isn't a worry to me as I intend to use a High Level gearbox. In fact, an order for this and a set of hornblocks is, hopefully, wending its way northwards as I write. Actually I was not referring to the gearboxes, but the axle boxes, as there are two types that Gibson do. I presume the kits is inner framed only as far as working is concerned, the outer being cosmetic? Stephen. __________________________________________ Comment posted by wagonman on Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:23 am Hi Nick Another one of this batch landed on my door-mat the other day, so I'm another who will be watching your progress with keen interest. I wonder who the other 8 lucky owners are? Richard __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:52 am yachtie wrote: Edit: It would be nice to see some photos of the extra detail you describe in the post directly above this one! I'm still very much a beginner so need every hint I can get..... Yes, I'll try to post some more photos tomorrow when I can take advantage of some daylight. I'm really only a beginner, too. Apart from some buildings and track, the list at the top of this thread covers pretty much my entire experience since I took up modelling again a couple of years ago. I too need every hint I can get, but I find RMweb is just the right place for that. Bertiedog wrote: Actually I was not referring to the gearboxes, but the axle boxes, as there are two types that Gibson do. I presume the kits is inner framed only as far as working is concerned, the outer being cosmetic? or is it outer only on a buffalo.... Crossed wires, indeed In which case, I guess these are the etched type. A strip of etched brass is bent around three sides of a square slotted brass bearing to form the fixed part of the horn guide. Brass wire fits between the bearing slots and a half-etched line in this strip to form the guides. At the top, a steel nut without flats (like their crankpin nuts) is soldered to the brass and a 1mm or 14BA screw is inserted to retain a spring and act as a limit stop. If this isn't clear enough, I'll try to remember to include them in a photo later in the week. Yes, the bearings are in the inner frames and the outer ones are cosmetic. wagonman wrote: Another one of this batch landed on my door-mat the other day, so I'm another who will be watching your progress with keen interest. I wonder who the other 8 lucky owners are? We're obviously a select, but growing band I'm beginning to wonder whether this will tell us how big a slice of the market the RMweb membership is. From the numbers who mentioned signing up for an S&D 7F kit in an earlier thread (probably one of CK's?) I think we may be a significant proportion Nick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:16 pm yachtie wrote: I'm still very much a beginner so need every hint I can get..... You were joking, of course Your Wheal Holly work, buildings especially, were one of those threads that helped turn me from a lurker to a member -- really inspirational. Nick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:58 pm As promised, some photos of work so far. First, the addiional detail on the cab steps, rivets, inspection/access hole and brake cross shaft bush (at least, that's what I believe it to be ) The access hole was drilled 0.7mm, though I think it maybe should be a bit larger. The plate is an oval wagon maker's or registration plate from a Mainly Trains etch. A pair of these, one for each side, were soldered face down to an offcut of brass sheet, then drilled 1mm for the shaft and 0.3mm to take a couple of Scale Hardware rivets to represent the mounting bolts. They were then removed from the temporary backing and soldered into place over a section of 1mm od tube passed through the hole. I use 100 degree solder and a temperature controlled iron here so that I could hold the iron in place while adjusting the position without disturbing the steps. I could probably have used 147 degree or similar as the steps were attached with 179 solder cream. Once aligned, I drilled through the 0.3mm holes and added the rivets before soldering rivets and tube in place from behind. Finally, the rivets and tube were trimmed off at the back of the steps. When assembled, the intention is that a cross shaft should spring into the back of these bushes. Together, they seem to me to give a reasonable approximation to the prototype: I've also started adding the w-m cast spring anchors. This is more tricky than I expected as you need to hold and solder on the inside of the frame but can only really check the alignment from the outside. This meant frequently removing the frames from the clamp I was using to hold them, then turning them over to find the anchors pointing in ever direction but the required one. As you can see, some of them still need a bit of tweaking. 100degree solder again. Next in the photos, but actually the first of these details to be added were the heads of the brake pivot bolts. These show clearly on early photographs of the saddle tanks, though by the time that rebuilds as panniers started, the heads had been covered by what looks like a locking plate to stop the bolts turning. As mentioned before, these are Scale Hardware bolts, 0.5mm thread, 0.8mm A/F, soldered into 0.5mm holes using 179 degree solder cream. Lastly for today, the inner frames have been straightened and just tacked together then placed in position to show the way in which the rear spacer is reversed to allow space for couplings and other buffer beam paraphenalia. Next, finish the details on the other side of the outer frames and assemble the coupling rods, Hopefully the new hornblocks will have arrived by then and I'll be able to get on with the chassis. Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by Western Star on Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:05 pm buffalo wrote: Next in the photos, but actually the first of these details to be added were the heads of the brake pivot bolts. These show clearly on early photographs of the saddle tanks, though by the time that rebuilds as panniers started, the heads had been covered by what looks like a locking plate to stop the bolts turning. Nick Not being familiar with the finer points of GWR engineering in Victorian era... by the time that Churchward and Collet got to design their beasts the brake hangers were often hung on a plain pin... with a plate over the head of the brake hanger pin to prevent that pin from coming out of the braker hanger bracket. Said retaining plate being secured by two hex-headed bolts, each with a grover washer. regards, Graham Beare __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:24 pm Thanks for that, Graham. What I described as locking plates on the later pannier rebuilds do, indeed, look like they could be the retaining plates you describe. Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bertiedog on Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:35 pm Nick, What has been your experience in supply from Scale Hardware, I know them well as far as quality goes, their hardware comes in several US made kits that I have made, but I wondered about the cost of postage., and your rating in relation to cost overall, as cost is important to me. There seem to be few specialist suppliers of really small bolts in the UK now, most mainly citing lack of the materials to produce the smaller sizes, no sub 2mm hex brass for instance. This stops hex heads or nuts at 14BA, although some suppliers list 16BA at the moment. I think the .5 mm x .8mm hex head from Scale Hardware compare to between 18BA to 20BA, but these days most charts stop at 16BA if you are lucky, not the 26BA once made. I have succeeded in making the smallest rivets that they make, but the threaded bolts would need dies, and Scale hardware do not market them, suggesting to me that they cut the threads in a die box on a lathe, or a specialist threading lathe. I see that they market the very small taps though, quite competitively priced Swiss sourced ones. Stephen. __________________________________________ Comment posted by yachtie on Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:39 pm Nick - thanks for the photos of the extra detail. This is looking really good! It was great to hear a beginner to the 'sport' can inspire a lurker to come out! In turn, your work is going to inspire me to attempt greater accuracy when I eventually make a start..... Mine remain firmly in the box for the time being but it was nice to hear that Wagonman has joined the Buffalo club too.... your comment on my first attempts at kit-bashing is still in the forefront of my mind as I have finally started on my pile of 31 Diagram O13s so that the Buffalos will have something to shunt when finally started! Every brake is now doubly checked! Nick, are you modelling a specific Buffalo or a 'generic' version? __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:24 am Bertiedog wrote: What has been your experience in supply from Scale Hardware, I know them well as far as quality goes, their hardware comes in several US made kits that I have made, but I wondered about the cost of postage., and your rating in relation to cost overall, as cost is important to me. I bought most of my stock last year while the exchange rate was more favourable than it has been in recent months. They are quite expensive, but even the few suppliers of 16BA in this country also seem quite expensive to me. As to postage and delivery, they really score here. I've just found an invoice from last December where they charged $3 on a $50 order and it arrived in about three days. Bertiedog wrote: I think the .5 mm x .8mm hex head from Scale Hardware compare to between 18BA to 20BA, but these days most charts stop at 16BA if you are lucky, not the 26BA once made. Somewhere, I should have some old charts that belonged to my father. His engineering was a little heavier, but I'm sure I remember seeing the spec of the a wide range of BA sizes amongst them. Unfortunately, I've no idea where they are. Bertiedog wrote: I have succeeded in making the smallest rivets that they make, but the threaded bolts would need dies, and Scale hardware do not market them, suggesting to me that they cut the threads in a die box on a lathe, or a specialist threading lathe. I see that they market the very small taps though, quite competitively priced Swiss sourced ones. Yes, I saw your rivet picture -- most impressive. For those who haven't seen these tiny parts, here's a not too sharp picture: Nick __________________________________________

One little addition that I forgot to mention is the coal rails on the bunker. The kit provided these as a sinle part on the etch but, once bent to shape, the ends were overhanging. Rather than shortening the etched part, I decided to make my own. This way I could produce something more prototypical as photos show the original was made from half-round, not flat, bar. This seems to be a common error in kits at this scale, my Finney GWR Dean 2500 gallon tender also had flat coal rails. Unfortunately, I couldn't source any suitable half-round wire or a draw plate that would produce any thing small enough. I first tried some 1mm half round brass but this looked far too big so, in the end, I filed down a length of 0.7mm round brass to a suitable shape and made the supports from short lengths of boiler band material. Nick

Hi Stephen, Well, you must have done something right because I can read it after clicking on a 'comments' link below my post. Looking forward to more on servos, gearboxes, etc., when you have settled in here Nick

With some trepidation I'm starting my first entry in this new style workbench blog. My intention is to continue where I left off in my workbench thread on the old RMweb. I'll have to check that link later as the old forum is offline at the moment . As a result, I'm not sure whether my last post at around 6:45 this evening actually reached the old site, so I'll start by repeating it, slightly edited, here. I've spent some of the last couple of days looking at the new RMweb (only as a guest, I haven't dared to log in in case Andy sent the boys round to slap my wrists or worse ) and reading the various HowTos in preparation for the great release tonight. I like much of what I've seen but am still uncertain about this blog approach to work bench threads. To me, the reversal of the time dimension in blogs disrupts the normal sequence in telling a story of the building a loco/wagon/coach/building/etc. We'll just have to see how it pans out. Maybe I'll try Martin's transfer program to move the old thread to the new site, but I'm still not clear what it will end up looking like. Anyway, back to the Buffalo. I have managed to complete the detailing of the body and have given it a first coat of primer, followed by a few Archers rivets to represent those not present on the castings or damaged during the build: Since the last photos I've added the cab roof and whistles. The whistles were made from brass rod and tube and protrude vertically from the cab roof, although they are hidden by masking tape in the photos. The idea of using the London Road Models LNWR pattern lamp sockets was less successful. Although the footplate mounted sockets could be made by filing off part of the mounting plate, the way the sockets are mounted on the bunker and at the top of the smokebox are quite different from the GWR pattern. In the end, I made my own. Those on the bunker are made from 1mm square brass tubing with a 0.4mm brass rod soldered into a hole on one side. The rod was then low-melt soldered into holes drilled in the bunker. The one at the top of the smokebox incorporates the hand rail knob, so this was milled, drilled and turned from a piece of 2mm round brass rod. The results aren't perfect, but look reasonable from 'normal viewing distance'. Nick