Thank you both.

@Bob G , I believe the model to be as purchased. It belonged to a collector with no model railway so had probably never previously been run.

I'm happy for it to have the incorrect tender so I'll probably heed your advice and "deal" with that white lining.

As I said, the locomotive is a good runner especially after a good run in which seemed to confirm that it had never previously been run.

I'll post a photo of the amended livery in due course.

@chrism - do you happen to know when it was repainted from black to green?

Thanks

Martin

Quote from: Southerngooner on Yesterday at 04:29:37 PMIf your couplings are to be used for pushing stock along make sure there is some sort of pushing bar as on the DG/B&B. Without this you will get problems when pushing round reverse curves. What works in 4mm does not always work well in N. As someone who is a long term B&B user (over 200 made and in use.....) I wish you well, but it would need to be a really good product to make me want to change!

dAve

That's a good tip and something I will be sure to test! These aren't really meant to poach DG/B&B users, hopefully they will be something that offers similar functionality to those without needing much assembly and having the convenience of NEM plugs. But they won't be as discreet overall - you can barely see DGs from what I've seen!

Will.

Quote from: Bob G on Yesterday at 04:56:01 PMHi Martin, I'm not a GWR aficionado, but IIRC the Dapol early crest Granges had the smaller 3500 gal Manor style tender. I have found these tenders to be annoyingly problematic for pick up compared to the 4000 gal Hall style tender. What you seem to have there is an early crest Hall tender (with less aggravating mixed traffic lining) coupled to an early crest Grange loco which also had overly bright mixed traffic lining.

If you are happy that the tender is probably incorrect for the Grange in that livery, paint out the white, or at least reduce its brightness.

Good point, Bob.
6809 should have the smaller tender, unless it did get given a larger one before a coat of green paint.
6819 received lined black in 1955 but also had a 4000 gallon tender at that time.

Quote from: port perran on Yesterday at 03:46:25 PMLet's start with a photograph :

I purchased this Grange at a local toy fair around six weeks ago.
She's a lovely runner and a very nice addition to my fleet to complement my existing Grange in lined green livery.

However, that white lining on the inside of the splashers is rather grating on me.
I have a BR (W) Hall also in lined black but the splasher lining is a thin band of gold which looks splendid.

My question is, were some Granges out-shopped with white lining to the splashers?

Is it authentic or is it simply a case that Dapol have applied it a little too thickly thereby drawing one's eye to it?

I've a mind to go over it with black but before I do so does anyone else have an opinion?

Thank you
Martin

PS The white lining is even more obtrusive to the naked eye than it is in the photograph.

Hi Martin, I'm not a GWR aficionado, but IIRC the Dapol early crest Granges had the smaller 3500 gal Manor style tender. I have found these tenders to be annoyingly problematic for pick up compared to the 4000 gal Hall style tender. What you seem to have there is an early crest Hall tender (with less aggravating mixed traffic lining) coupled to an early crest Grange loco which also had overly bright mixed traffic lining. I have an early crest Schools which is equally overbright, even after Rob Elliott's weathering efforts.

If you are happy that the tender is probably incorrect for the Grange in that livery, paint out the white, or at least reduce its brightness.

Best regards
Bob (a Southern man!)

Quote from: port perran on Yesterday at 03:46:25 PMHowever, that white lining on the inside of the splashers is rather grating on me.

It does look rather heavy.
From what I can see from a Google search of real locos rather than models, it should be a thickish light grey line, with a thin white one inside it, then a gap followed by a thin red line. Can't be sure if the bottom of the splashers had anything other than the thin red line.

QuoteI have a BR (W) Hall also in lined black but the splasher lining is a thin band of gold which looks splendid.

Could that not be just the brass beading on the splasher edge?
I'm not sure, but it could be that that one should also have had the grey/white/red lining as well.

QuoteMy question is, were some Granges out-shopped with white lining to the splashers?
Is it authentic or is it simply a case that Dapol have applied it a little too thickly thereby drawing one's eye to it?

The splasher lining does look too heavy, although that it's lined at all is authentic for that particular loco - from what I can find only 6809 (from Dec'49) and 6819 (from 1955) got lined black, all the rest were unlined.

Can't see clearly from your photo - does it have the brass beading on the splasher edges? If not, maybe you could put that on which would thin the white?

If your couplings are to be used for pushing stock along make sure there is some sort of pushing bar as on the DG/B&B. Without this you will get problems when pushing round reverse curves. What works in 4mm does not always work well in N. As someone who is a long term B&B user (over 200 made and in use.....) I wish you well, but it would need to be a really good product to make me want to change!

dAve

To be honest the vast majority of photos I upload to my gallery so that I can cetegorise them, rather than add to the general clutter. I'll only use that "Add picture" top half of the form for something like a diagram intended for another user in their post.

I agree the PCF category must be redundant now.

I usually keep 3 different lengths of NEM shank Rapido couplings in my spares box.  The middle ones in this photo are Farish "standard", I forget where the others come from though I think the long shanks are Dapol (for the 67?)   5.75mm difference between shortest and longest.

Quote from: Steven B on Yesterday at 03:42:00 PMThe NEM355 standard quotes 6mm from the front face of the pocket to the buffers.

What works practically will depend on close coupling mechanisms and minimum radius on the layout.

Looking forward to seeing what you produce - will it be any smaller/better than Dapol's Easi-shunts?

Indeed! Adherence to that standard is....not universal, shall we say ! In terms of smaller and better, subjectively I would say that they are more discreet than Easishunts - those knuckles are quite noticeable on N gauge rolling stock. However they will be more visible than say DG couplings.

In terms of better, it depends what you want I suppose. I designed these to be really good for finescale shunting of NEM fitted stock, primarily. The fact that you only need a magnet at the entrance to a siding and can leave a wagon anywhere you like once you have passed the magnet is a feature I really like. It functions identically to Sprat and Winkle couplings in terms of movement, though the design of the catch is completely different, and pivots up not down. Here's an example of what shunting will look like and I have already tested this successfully on some N gauge wagons, though this video example uses OO Spratt & Winkles.


I terms of assembly, they are much easier than DG in that there is no soldering or need for exotic glues, but it's not "push in and go" like Rapidos or buckeyes.

Will.

Let's start with a photograph :

I purchased this Grange at a local toy fair around six weeks ago.
She's a lovely runner and a very nice addition to my fleet to complement my existing Grange in lined green livery.

However, that white lining on the inside of the splashers is rather grating on me.
I have a BR (W) Hall also in lined black but the splasher lining is a thin band of gold which looks splendid.

My question is, were some Granges out-shopped with white lining to the splashers?

Is it authentic or is it simply a case that Dapol have applied it a little too thickly thereby drawing one's eye to it?

I've a mind to go over it with black but before I do so does anyone else have an opinion?

Thank you
Martin

PS The white lining is even more obtrusive to the naked eye than it is in the photograph.