No.85 Buffers – fitting sprung buffers to Hornby Duke of Gloucester
As a break from work work I took a day off to replace the buffers on my Hornby Duke of Gloucester (DoG).
Hornby R3191 Duke of Gloucester as I think it should be
with Sprung Buffers
I was inspired by Matt otherwise known as ‘Bluebell Model Railway’ of RMweb.
Fitting the buffers to the front was straightforward. I
followed Matt’s suggestion and used Hornby Spare Part No. X9313. My usual
supplier did not have the R (red) variant so mine were black and had to be
painted red.
There are two square holes in the back of the buffer beam
which had been used to locate the original buffers. After cutting off the old
shanks I used a 0.5mm size drill to extend these holes through to the front. I
then gradually enlarged the holes from the front starting with 1/16 drill bit,
moving up to 5/64 and finishing with 3/32. The Hornby body shell is made of
relatively soft plastic and I rotated the drill bits with my fingers. Finally I
used a craft knife again to clean the edges of the holes. I used Super Glue to
fix the new buffers. This type of glue can dissolve the plastic so use
sparingly.
Engine Buffers Hornby X9313 fixed to buffer beam, left,
grooves ground into chassis, right
With work on the bodyshell complete l used a minicutting
disc to grind two grooves in the front of the chassis to allow the sprung
buffers to retract.
Matt suggests X96202 buffers for the Tender. These are for
the Hornby 28xx/38xx range and in my opinion are not a good match for DoG. I
would try a different approach. I would swap the DoG tender underframe complete
with buffers for a Hornby spare from a Britannia. There seems to be two
variants available, X9601 has plain black axle boxes and a four pin socket to
connect with the engine, and X9602 which has yellow painted axle boxes and a
two pin socket. DoG does not have tender pickups and I didn’t need a socket, I
would use X9602 and add a red stripe to the yellow ‘BR TIMKEN’ axle covers to
match the engine.
Masking the Timken Bearing Covers prior to painting
red
Whilst the DoG and Britannia tender frames appear similar,
their construction is quite different. In fact Hornby would appear to have
engineered the whole DoG from scratch without any attempt to utilise parts from
previous models. I shall return to this point later.
DoG Diecast metal tender frame - nice detail but a bit
chunky
’BR TIMKEN’- good detail beneath the paint
Now below a view of DoG tender underframe showing the parts
that need to be removed and highlighting the difference in engine to tender
couplings.
The Britannia Tender frame has a die cast platform but the
rest, including dummy side frames, inside wheel bearings and rear buffer beam
are all add on highly detailed plastic components. Luckily the adhesive bond
between the die casting and the plastic is poor and both DoG and the Britannia
tender underframes can be rapidly disassembled to assist with conversion and
repainting.
Britannia Tender Frame Part No X9602 - beginning to
disassemble - and what is the little tank used for?
The Hornby adhesive works well for plastics. If like me you
wish to use the DoG front platform with the Britannia front tender steps it is
likely that you will need to prise the plastic front steps off the Britannia
front platform. Hot water is no help. Soaking in acetone nail varnish remover
softens the adhesive – and some of the plastics – so be warned!
The three views below show how to mix and match the axle
keeper from DoG with the inside wheel bearings from Britannia.
Mix and match-DoG keeper - top, Britannia chassis -
bottom
Cut Britannia wheel supports and fit individually ready
for DoG keeper plate - bottom
I did try to leave the DoG components ‘unmolested’ however
it is necessary to remove a small lip from the axle keeper plate as shown
below.
DoG retainer - need to remove lip at left hand side
Reassembly is straight forward. Most important parts are
screwed together. For the finer detail I again used Super Glue. Remember to
insert the engine to tender coupling before gluing the front platform in place!
Also for consideration are the two little side tanks that hang down from the
tender sides (I have to admit I don’t know their prototype use). For Britannia
the top green part of the tanks are part of the tender top and the lower black
parts are attached to the tender frame. On DoG all of the tanks are part of the
tender body moulding. As I have said already I tried to leave DoG parts
unmolested. I chose to snap off the bits of black coloured tank from the
Britannia chassis – the broken fixings being completely masked when the DoG
tender top is lowered into position.
Replacing the tender frame is more costly than swapping buffers
but I would say there are added benefits.
Duke of Gloucester Tender - left versus Hornby Clan -
right
Altogether I think a vast improvement.
Hornby Clan Tender - left versus Duke of Gloucester with
Replacement Buffers - right
The spare tender frame for Britannia came without a scale
coupling hook so I needed to recover the plastic moulding from DoG.
DoG Diecast metal tender frame – note the chunky rear
steps and plain cast buffer shanks
I was lucky and after soaking in nail varnish remover for a
good few hours the DoG hook was prised loose. – but oh dear the plastic
buffers. The silver grey paint over the buffer heads was perfectly intact but
the plastic inside has collapsed – so be warned. What I found more interesting
was that the spigot on the coupling hook from DoG was about twice the size of
the hole in the Britannia buffer beam. Yet another example where DoG seems to
have been totally redesigned without reference to any pre-existing Hornby parts
or models.
Hornby R3191 Duke of Gloucester as should have been with
Sprung Buffers?
The trade price of a set of four Hornby sprung buffers must
be around £2.00 whilst a plastic smoke box dart might be around 10p? It
‘beggars belief’ as to why Hornby thought that it was a good idea to miss these
parts off the model and in the case of the buffers to substitute some rather
clumsy, poorly detailed items not seen on a model since Triang days. Is the
clue in the recent Financial Statement to the Stock Exchange? Are Hornby’s
‘trouble’ with suppliers similar to events back in the 1980s when I seem to
remember Airfix did not own completely the rights to various models – hence
Airfix, Mainline, Replica, Dapol and finally Hornby were all able to ‘sell’ ex
GWR ‘B’ set coaches manufactured at the independent Chinese factory?
Much improved
So why didn’t Hornby spend just a few more pennies?
Comments