You Can't Beat A Bit of Bulleid - Open Wagons Next For IRM

[Warbonnet]

Hi folks,

As you can see below, lined up with a 141 they match perfectly. I believe this is the same for 071s, Cravens and 201s too from another manufacturer. Not to mention Woolwich moguls, jintys etc from this era. 

While not in scale position, it does match the majority of locos made and looks more at home on 00 track, which we find that 99% of our customers prefer and use. We also considered the historical usage of these wagons in mixed trains, such as cattle wagons, tankers and vans which many modellers already have represented on their layouts using re-liveried UK models, and we felt it odd to have our wagons have a different buffer spacings in an otherwise uniform mixed train.

We went for a compromise as a result. It is a case of "Damned if you do, damned if you dont" I'm afraid. Of course, for the finescaler and top modellers out there, they can be repositioned with some modelling if they choose to do so.

We try to be considerate as possible for those who wish to go finescale, hence the new 28mm axles that make 21mm gauge easy, put sometimes we have to make a choice

We showed off all samples early on and heard no objections, so we pushed on with production.

Cheers!

Fran

 

[MAL]

Hi Fran

this is good bad news to me.

I didn't notice this befor and probably had not noticed the issue if I had selected a 141 or 181 to pull the sting of my Bulleids.

The broad buffer plates of the 42' flats covered the different buffer spacing well as they did with the 121-181 pairing.

At least up to now. With knowing the issue it never is as it was before.

A solution for my bulleids could be that all wide buffer spacing locos are forbidden to draw the BR buffer spaced wagons.

But there is still the distorted impression of wide bearings and narrow buffers.

 

Sad story that this happened with these otherwise really nice IRM models.

 

To solve the issue I would need to cut all buffers off and move each of them 1.25mm to the outside.
There are 72 buffers to be moved + 84 buffers on preordered vans and grains.
This will probably give me a lot of broken bulleids (at least bulleid with broken details) and a lot of cuts in my fingers.

What should I do? Return and cancel, improve or keep them and drown the pain in Guinness?

Edited July 17 by MAL

[Warbonnet]

5 minutes ago, MAL said:

Hi Fran

this is good bad news to me.

I didn't notice this befor and probably had not noticed the issue if I had selected a 141 or 181 to pull the sting of my Bulleids.

The broad buffer plates of the 42' flats covered the different buffer spacing well as they did with the 121-181 pairing.

At least up to now. With knowing the issue it never is as it was before.

A solution for my bulleids could be that all wide buffer spacing locos are forbidden to draw the BR buffer spaced wagons.

But there is still the distorted impression of wide bearings and narrow buffers.

 

Sad story that this happened with these otherwise really nice IRM models.

 

To me it means I would need to cut all buffers off and move each of them 1.25mm to the outside.
There are 72 buffer to be moved + 84 on preordered vans and grains.
This will probably give me a lot of broken bulleids (at least broken details) and alot of cuts in my fingers.

What should I do? Return, Improve, cancel or keep them and drown the pain in Guinness?
 

.

Hi Al,

It is up to you what you decide to do, but note that a lot of Irish models are made this way, and we tried best to facilitate everyone, but that is impossible. 

If you wish to cancel future orders please email us with your order number, but it is also worth remembering that your 141 class locos, cravens, 071 etc also has this and it is very unlikely models of this quality of these wagons will ever be made again, being very niche to begin with.

Cheers!

Fran 

[iarnrod]

Thanks for the explanation  Fran.

Seems less of an issue to me now when other Irish stock has the same buffer spacing e.g. 141's.

Still a bit confused as to why this decision as regards buffer beam spacing was taken for this particular range of wagons and not all of the other IRM wagons and locos released to date. I suspect that there may have been more discussion surrounding this if made known earlier when wagon plans were first made public.

Edited July 17 by iarnrod

[MAL]

Hi Fran

It was good to write the lines here in the forum.

Otherwise I had focused on this issue without notifying the other identical issues.

The bad thing is the Bulleids have these tiny buffer plates which emphasize the flaw.

Anyway - I'll open a can of Guinness (the cans with the small plastic ball inside carrying pressurized nitrogen to make the right texture of Guinness in the glass) and then think and decide.

Model railroading is a endless story of compromises.

 

Cheers!

Edited July 17 by MAL
amended Fran and Cheers.

[gibbo675]

5 minutes ago, MAL said:

Hi Fran

It was good to write the lines here in the forum.

Otherwise I had focused on this issue without notifying the other identical issues.

The bad thing is the Bulleids have these tiny buffer plates which emphasize the flaw.

Anyway - I'll open a can of Guinness (the cans with the small plastic ball inside carrying pressurized nitrogen to make the right texture of Guinness in the glass) and then think and decide.

Model railroading is a endless story of compromises.

 

Cheers!

More so that most models will be running on 4' 1.5" gauge track !!!

[Georgeconna]

Can you get a etched saw and cut them off a and reposition them if it bothers you.

I expected the case it was to match the 10000's of UK outline stuff that had been released over the years masquerading as Oirish.

 

[DJ Dangerous]

That explanation makes perfect sense, @Warbonnet.

I wasn't aware of the UK spacing on all of the MM locos etc, never even thought to look - just wanted a picture of a pure IRM train!

Might it be an idea, going forward, to add a little line of text in red under the "Common Features" for coaches and wagons that will have the UK buffer spacing?

That would make everybody's life easier, the IRM crew and their customers.

I assume that the Park Royal's will also have the buffers spaced this way, so they'll line up perfectly with Cravens, Bulleids etc?

Examples of "Common Features" attached.

 

 

[gibbo675]

1 hour ago, gibbo675 said:

More so that most models will be running on 4' 1.5" gauge track !!!

I forgot to mention first radius curves, probably as well that I didn't.

[Warbonnet]

Hi Dave,

The Park Royal’s as it stands is done to prototypical Irish spacing. This is due to the future development of our range of both coaches and motive power which will become apparent in the future.

Cheers!

Fran

[MAL]

1 hour ago, gibbo675 said:

More so that most models will be running on 4' 1.5" gauge track !!!

I thought I might regauge the wheel sets somewhen and have a few meters of broad gauged track just for display.

But this seems no longer necessary as long as the buffers are narrow.

I am a little confused now about how to continue with my rolling stock.

[DJ Dangerous]

7 minutes ago, Warbonnet said:

This is due to the future development of our range of both coaches and motive power which will become apparent in the future.

 

What a very @BosKonay thing to say. Can't find my troll smiley.

[MAL]

22 minutes ago, Warbonnet said:

Hi Dave,

The Park Royal’s as it stands is done to prototypical Irish spacing. This is due to the future development of our range of both coaches and motive power which will become apparent in the future.

Cheers!

Fran

I thought the development with Irish rolling stock already was on the point to have all main dimensions correct. At least the bearings to be able to take the widened wheelsets. The flats, ore and other IRM 4 wheelrs and the A class are this way. My MM Cravens and the Mark 2Ds have 25mm spacing. The Cravens will get the wide B4 bogies to give the impression they couldn't provide up to now. So I really did not expect the Bulleids to have the narrow buffer spacing. Sad that IRM missed this opportunity to be on top.

 

I just converted a Kato DD51 (JNR) into a kit by touching the loco with the caliper while measuring the Craven and the Mark 2D. The level of tracks was 125 cm and the drop of the Kato engine was hard. All parts seem to be fine but apart. Lucky that Kato uses a good plastic material and that the loco was only one year old. My other DD51 is from 1995 or so. Details of the kit coversion will be checked later.

Edited July 17 by MAL

[MAL]

2 hours ago, Warbonnet said:

snip

While not in scale position, it does match the majority of locos made and looks more at home on 00 track, which we find that 99% of our customers prefer and use.

snip

Cheers!

Fran

 

I suggest to make an investigation about what should be produced claiming to be up-tp-date.

Couldn't you start a survey to find out.

Especially as up-to-date seems to be a wide wheels set capability (MM 121, 141, 181, IRM Irisch rolling stock).

[Galteemore]

45 minutes ago, MAL said:

I thought the development with Irish rolling stock already was on the point to have all main dimensions correct. At least the bearings to be able to take the widened wheelsets. The flats, ore and other IRM 4 wheelrs and the A class are this way. My MM Cravens and the Mark 2Ds have 25mm spacing. The Cravens will get the wide B4 bogies to give the impression they couldn't provide up to now. So I really did not expect the Bulleids to have the narrow buffer spacing. Sad that IRM missed this opportunity to be on top.

 

I just converted a Kato DD51 (JNR) into a kit by touching the loco with the caliper while measuring the Craven and the Mark 2D. The level of tracks was 125 cm and the drop of the Kato engine was hard. All parts seem to be fine but apart. Lucky that Kato uses a good plastic material and that the loco was only one year old. My other DD51 is from 1995 or so. Details of the kit coversion will be checked later.

That’s a shame. I loved my Kato trains. Especially the ones that looked like GNRI railcars !!

Edited July 17 by Galteemore

[MOGUL]

1 hour ago, MAL said:

I suggest to make an investigation about what should be produced claiming to be up-tp-date.

Couldn't you start a survey to find out.

Especially as up-to-date seems to be a wide wheels set capability (MM 121, 141, 181, IRM Irisch rolling stock).

Can I point you in the direction of this thread, where @BosKonaydid conduct a survey.. The survey suggested about 45% would be interested in 21mm, however if you read the comments the general consensus is that most like the idea in theory but the large investment already made by a lot of modellers in OO models from Murphy’s, Bachmann, Dapol and others that weren’t readily convertible to 21mm would make such a change prohibitive.. Furthermore the lack of standardisation with a larger market(the other ones with 5ft 3in being less than ideal)like the U.K., meant less RTR stock could be easily resprayed to Irish prototypes(think Hornby jinty)

 

Edited July 17 by MOGUL

[MAL]

Yes you can. I once had been in that 21mm thread at least with one comment.

But I think converting a layout to 21 mm is a quite different thing compared to make a rolling stock model to look as the prototype as close as possible. And the thread was about 21mm tracks to ride on. Right now it's about model appearance.

But why do we have chassis with wide bearings? Isn't it to have the right impression of the vehicle. Those bearings and bogies are obvious for the shape even that they hold wheelsets of 16.5mm gauge. To me the buffer position is as important as the bearing position. Pairing wide wagons with narrow wagons contrast in bearing position - why do the buffer have to align? Running on a completly wrong gauged track (16.5mm is not correct for 1/76)?

The issue cannot be solved easily.

Regarding the 21mm thread I think the best solution is a correct 00 model with the capability to use 16.5mm wheelsets as well as 21mm. This is available with some MM and IRM locos as well as with some of the MM and IRM rolling stock. I am really satisfied with these models. And as a compromise I accepted the Dapol, Hornby etc. British based wagons with narrow bearings and buffers. But these should slowly be out dated. The world is turning and things develop (I never thought that I would write something like this).

Japanese H0 model railroading is done in 1/80 with a Cape Gauge, 1,067 mm (3' 6”) prototype. Some can be converted to 13mm gauge and also some H0j raises with 1/87 scale and 12mm tracks. It aslo is a comromise that slowly moves to be prototypical (at least some parts).

PS: Please excuse if I sometimes use terms usually used with US railroads. US rails was my main interest since 1990.

PPS: I don't want to be offending even if some phrases may appear to be. English is not my mother's tounge.

Edited July 17 by MAL

[Georgeconna]

I would expect the Steam outline stuff to be slightly compromised too as a wide body over narrow wheels will look kinda daft.

[murphaph]

My opinion, for what it's worth and without wishing to rub anyone up the wrong way, is that the buffer spacing should be to scale like (most, all?) previous IRM wagons. The correct width bogies under Irish coaches give them a very different stance to GB stock of the same design. Similarly, the buffer spacing is a distinct characteristic of a wagon. I understand that images of pre-production samples were published but without a scale reference nobody would have been able to tell that they were not to scale width from those images so I don't think we can really infer anything either way.

I will definitely not be returning my Bulleid stock or cancelling my upcoming orders however. The wagons are far too nice for any of that and worst case scenario it's going to be a lot less work to move the buffers out on these rather than scratch build dozens of wagons but I think a poll on future buffer spacing might be a good idea here to get some feedback. If a majority prefer GB buffer spacing, then so be it, those of us who prefer the Irish spacing that we have become accustomed to from IRM will surely manage if that's the path that is taken. As MAL mentioned above, the previous poll was specifically on 21mm track, rather than anything to do with buffer spacing so a new poll would be useful I feel.

 

 

[murphaph]

5 minutes ago, Georgeconna said:

I would expect the Steam outline stuff to be slightly compromised too as a wide body over narrow wheels will look kinda daft.

I am almost sure I remember reading that this would be the case as it is basically impossible to hide the gauge/scale mismatch on a steam loco and it looks daft as you say so a compromise has to be made with most steam, especially ones with splashers. The buffer spacing is more of a choice though, to remain compatible with resprayed GB models or to manufacture true to scale. 

I can envision IRM stock displacing most of the resprayed GB wagons running on our railways in time so think the buffer spacing issue is less of an issue than we might think. In any case, folks could certainly continue running GB spec wagons in trains that only contain wagons with that buffer spacing and run scale buffer width wagons in other trains, if the mismatch bothers them.

[DJ Dangerous]

I feel like the key to most issues is prior communication.

If people knew in advance about the likes of the missing cylinder lids on the 42' Flat re-run, the narrow UK buffer spacing on the Bulleid Opens, the narrow UK bogies on the NIR coaches, the change in distribution centre etc, they'd be able to make informed decisions.

And, nobody would feel surprise or discontent if things weren't as they may have otherwise hoped.

The forum is of amazing value to all of us, but also of a lot of value to IRM as it gives them a medium to communicate en masse, run opinion polls etc.

@murphaph and @MAL are right, in my opinion, in suggesting that phasing out the narrow UK buffer spacing over time is the prudent path.

It definitely makes sense to keep it if there'll be nothing with the correct spacing in the future, but on reflection, probably doesn't make sense when the subsequent project, the Park Royals, does have the correct spacing.

I, too, definitely wouldn't have cancelled my orders in favour of scratch-building a hundred clunky pieces of rubbish! The IRM Bulleid Opens are simply stunning wagons. The detail, the correct width axles, the extras in the box, it all compliments an already wonderful wagon.

Only had a very brief chance to look over the wagons yesterday evening, after one job and before the other, and I was blown away.

I haven't looked in detail, but how hard is it to remove the buffers to reposition? Are the moulded into the chassis, requiring finicky and frustrating cutting? Or are they glued on, only requiring a little heat to remove?

As @Warbonnet said, you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't. There are pros and cons to both buffer options.

Just maybe, next time, we'll know about these little details beforehand.

[Mayner]

3 hours ago, murphaph said:

 The buffer spacing is more of a choice though, to remain compatible with resprayed GB models or to manufacture true to scale. 

One of the interesting points to come out during the early stages of marketing the JM Design 3D printed wagons was general feedback from Irish model railway clubs that many members 'could not see the point' of buying an accurate model or an Irish wagon if a similar UK wagon was available at a cheaper price.

Another is that in over 10 years of producing and selling 21mm compatible Irish locos and stock no one has commented on the buffer spacing. 

While IRMs earlier production was based on the expectation that customers would buy block trains of a single type of wagon, its likely that they realised that purchasers of Bullied wagons were more likely to buy in smaller quantities and take a mix and match approach with British outline stock, possibly accounting for the smaller than normal (200 pack?) production runs and focus on less usual wagons with the Flats, Oil tankers, Grain, fitted H.

In the end there seems to be little point in getting worked up over a 2.0-3 mm (1:76.2 Scale) difference in buffer centres between Irish and Standard gauge stock while working to a gauge of 4'1½" to represent the Irish 5'3" track gauge.

Depending on reference Wikipedia quotes 1750 +/-10mm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_(rail_transport) & 1727mm for UK and Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffers_and_chain_coupler

[MAL]

The buffer spacing is not obvious by the distance but by the visible remaining buffer plate space from buffer to the outside.

The 1.25 mm is a huge and easy to spot deviation.

[gibbo675]

13 hours ago, MAL said:

I thought I might regauge the wheel sets somewhen and have a few meters of broad gauged track just for display.

But this seems no longer necessary as long as the buffers are narrow.

I am a little confused now about how to continue with my rolling stock.

Hi Mal,

Scratch build is always an option. Its all to do with the love and creative energy you place into your projects even if things aren't exactly accurate you will treasure your models as I do mine.

Gibbo.

[murphaph]

9 hours ago, DJ Dangerous said:

Are the moulded into the chassis, requiring finicky and frustrating cutting? Or are they glued on, only requiring a little heat to remove?

The buffer is glued into a hole on the buffer beam. To move mine out I reckon I'll drill new holes and glue the buffers into those, assuming I can extract the glued in buffer cleanly.

There is definitely no right or wrong decision here and I believe everyone gets that. The decision to produce these wagons to a GB buffer spacing is not invalid and genuine reasons can be presented for doing so, but as @DJ Dangerous says, perhaps there could have been some discussion here on the forum about it before a final decision was made. We have grown used to IRM wagons having exactly prototyplical dimensions wherever possible, so for some of us it has come a little out of the blue to find this change of tack.

[murphaph]

6 hours ago, Mayner said:

In the end there seems to be little point in getting worked up over a 2.0-3 mm (1:76.2 Scale) difference in buffer centres between Irish and Standard gauge stock while working to a gauge of 4'1½" to represent the Irish 5'3" track gauge.

Hi John, I don't know if you mean me when you say people are getting "worked up" (you quoted me and then wrote that under your quote but perhaps you were speaking more generally at that stage). I can only speak for myself when I say that I am not getting worked up, just communicating my own sentiments in a calm and collected manner. 

I have learned that by remaining silent it is often taken as agreement or acceptance. I just want to give the lads in IRM my feedback. I would prefer scale buffer spacing on all IRM stock. If that's not an opinion that's widely held then that's my tough luck, and I'll work around it but if I don't communicate my sentiments to the company then they can't know that there are people like me who would rather it like that. That's all

 

 

[Flying Snail]

43 minutes ago, murphaph said:

There is definitely no right or wrong decision here and I believe everyone gets that. The decision to produce these wagons to a GB buffer spacing is not invalid and genuine reasons can be presented for doing so, but as @DJ Dangerous says, perhaps there could have been some discussion here on the forum about it before a final decision was made. We have grown used to IRM wagons having exactly prototyplical dimensions wherever possible, so for some of us it has come a little out of the blue to find this change of tack.

I agree with murph's sentiments above and on this thread in general. I would have expected the buffer spacing to have been prototypical, so this is somewhat a surprise for me - but I absolutely get that there are compromises with OO. I'm not going to get worked up about it either way - they're a lovely wagon and I will be ordering more.

In the past there have been a number of threads around perceived issues with models that descended into temper tantrums and farce. I think this thread (so far anyhow ) is a very good example of how issues can be discussed respectfully and objectively and lead to a better understanding of the various perspectives for everyone - I know I've found it very informative 

[Mayner]

40 minutes ago, murphaph said:

Hi John, I don't know if you mean me when you say people are getting "worked up" (you quoted me and then wrote that under your quote but perhaps you were speaking more generally at that stage). I can only speak for myself when I say that I am not getting worked up, just communicating my own sentiments in a calm and collected manner. 

Murphaph I wasn't getting at you or any other contributor personally, its just that the issue of buffer spacing on the IRM Bullied wagons appeared trivial in the overall scheme of things considering the sheer amount of quality stock IRM have brought to the market in recent years.

 I quoted you because you correctly pointed out that IRM were faced with the choice of selecting a buffer spacing that remained compatible with resprayed British models or modelling true to scale. 

The fact that there have been over 25 postings in the issue of buffer spacing after D G first raised the issue  indicates that some people are getting "worked up" (upset/very excited) about the buffer spacing of the Bullied opens.

Interestingly before IRM introduced wagons with scale buffer spacing the majority of Irish RTR models and some kits were produced with British buffer spacing and no one seems to have made a comment.

Altering the buffer centres.  Looking at it practically altering the buffer centres on IRM's Bullied wagons would be challenging (especially with a diecast chassis) and probably not worth the bother for the majority of modellers. A jig or fixture would probably be needed to locate and drill the new buffer holes consistently and avoid damaging the wagons.

[Warbonnet]

23 minutes ago, Flying Snail said:

In the past there have been a number of threads around perceived issues with models that descended into temper tantrums and farce. I think this thread (so far anyhow ) is a very good example of how issues can be discussed respectfully and objectively and lead to a better understanding of the various perspectives for everyone - I know I've found it very informative 

Very well said and much appreciated @Flying Snail. We are always open to constructive comment and being open and honest with our point of view when there is some respectfulness in the comments and an understanding and acceptance of our point of view too.

When a tantrum is thrown it makes engaging and assisting a lot more difficult. All we have ever done is try to do our best by the Irish element of our great hobby and provide lots of models to bolster what has gone before, so we can make Irish outline railways a truly viable and attractive proposition for everyone.

I'm sure most are aware of our Accurascale side of the business, and how well that is going for us. With competition for factory capacity at an all time high, it would make more business sense for us to concentrate on high repeatability projects for Accurascale where we can do 15-20 reruns of over the life of the moulds and sell more due to the market size and demands, than doing any Irish outline model, as we may get 1-2 reruns tops of over the same period, and a much smaller production run to begin with. Our external accountants have basically argued that IRM could be seen as "costing money" as we leave those revenue opportunities on the table, but we do IRM and persist with bringing more and more models out because we love Irish railways and this is our home and our market. It's for the love of it. 

We are not asking to be hailed as heroes, or looking for excuses should we make a decision someone disagrees with, or indeed an error (we are all human after all), just a little bit of respect when expressing viewpoints. 

All I will say is that many Irish models, not just UK repaints, have had this set up for many years now, so it must be remembered that it's not an exclusively IRM Bulleid wagon quirk. It's odd how it's never been mentioned before. After all, all our wagons before these had them at scale distances and all ran behind locomotives which had the spacing at UK spec, and nobody ever said anything. Our As were the first to have them at correct spacing, and have been hauling coaches with UK spacing. 

It's amazing how our humble little Bulleid wagons brought it to the fore!

Cheers!

Fran 

 

[murphaph]

19 hours ago, MAL said:

 

 

 

 

That's an interesting pic. Those locos were built on the same chassis right? The buffers shoud be in exactly the same place on the prototype. I guess MM went for GB spacing on hos early 141 toolings and then opted for a more protypical width on the 121s.

[Warbonnet]

29 minutes ago, murphaph said:

Those locos were built on the same chassis right? 

If you are referring to the model, then no. Both were built on different chassis in different factories.

Cheers!

Fran 

[murphaph]

1 minute ago, Warbonnet said:

If you are referring to the model, then no. Both were built on different chassis in different factories.

Cheers!

Fran 

No I meant the prototype.

[217 RIVER FLESK]

I very, very rarely contribute to any of the discussions on here, preferring to just sit in the background & see what's happening out there due to no time for modelling. But for all the lack of modelling time, I do still keep buying the offerings from IRM that are relevant to my hoped for modelling time frame if & when retirement ever arrives.

 

I am a little surprised, if I read the above comments correctly, that IRM switched from having correctly spaced on earlier items, such as the ballast hoppers, cement bubbles etc to changing them to UK standard gauge spacing on the Bulleid wagons, as the buffer spacing would only really be a problem for those that are using 3-link couplings. IRM goals have always appeared to me, as a person standing very much on the sidelines, to be that of heading for ever greater accuracy, such as pushing the bogie frame sides out on the MkIIs & having the Bulleid wagon frames correctly spaced. I suspect that 95%(?) of us probably stay with OO scale track, because, like in my case, life is too short now from where I'm standing to start building scale 5'-3" track or they just want to get some track down & start running trains & having fun. Fun after all is supposed to be what all of this is about? 

I'm certainly not going to stop buying IRM models in light of 'buffer-gate', but I do like consistency. My own preference would be to stick with correctly spaced buffers, but I wouldn't object if two sets of holes were cast into the chassis to allow UK / Irish spacing, but that does seem to be a case of pushing things close to the edge when trying to cater for every modeler out there.

You could then start to argue that all models should come with 3-link couplings ready fitted & sprung ones at that, because the prototype ones are. Oh & why weren't the buffers on the Bulleid wagons sprung? Oh & tut, tut, the side doors are fixed.

 

I generally think that IRM manage to walk the right path through the minefield of modelers & if anything I think perhaps that they are trying to pack too much detail in, there currently appearing to be an arms race in fine details & DCC features in the 4mm world, but then I'm a self confessed luddite & fossil fuel burner . . .      

[BSGSV]

50 minutes ago, murphaph said:

No I meant the prototype.

Very different from each other on the prototype too!

As a general comment, I am a bit taken aback at the heat that seems to be there regarding the buffer spacing, given most folk seem to use tension lock or kadee or similar to couple their vehicles. I would notice these rather more than buffer spacing.

[DJ Dangerous]

2 hours ago, Warbonnet said:

we are not asking to be hailed as heroes, or looking for excuses should we make a decision someone disagrees with, or indeed an error (we are all human after all), just a little bit of respect when expressing viewpoints. 

It's odd how it's never been mentioned before. After all, all our wagons before these had them at scale distances and all ran behind locomotives which had the spacing at UK spec, and nobody ever said anything. Our As were the first to have them at correct spacing, and have been hauling coaches with UK spacing.

 

I don't think anybody's being disrespectful, yet, are they?

Maybe at the weekend, that'll start.

Not really that odd that it's only coming to light, now. I would guess that the width of the buffer faces themselves is why these stand out from Murphy Models' older locos and their coaching stock.

The older MM locos and the MM coaching stock have relatively wide buffer faces, so the misalignment doesn't stand out.

@Mayner has (very justifiably) prided himself on the accuracy of his models, and they have the older narrow buffer faces.

You'd probably notice even more with one of his brakevans, but I can't verify this, it's only speculation.

Combine that with such an about-turn from IRM on the details, and maybe that's why some folk are surprised.

Again, to clarify, I think that they're savage little wagons, and standing alone, they look amazing to me, and I wouldn't be cancelling orders or anything rash.