I've started a new thread so I don't hi-jack James's thread here:
http://www.gscalecentral.net/tm?m=107675&mpage=12
I mentioned the use of the Peco buffer stop outdoors on his railway, and Ricky commented that he was having problems fitting one to his own layout.
I have 3 off these fitted to Hardyard. I brought 2 originally for outdoor use, but I didn't find them robust enough, and the adhesive I'd used to make them failed. (Maybe I should have used a pipe solvent?)
http://www.kato-unitrack.co.uk/peco-sl-940-buffer-stop-8759-0.html
The link above shows one fitted to Peco G 45 code 250 track and rail. I guess it'd designed to clip onto this track without problems, but for those of us who use the more common code 332 track (LGB, PIKO, ART, USAT, etc), I found that I need to modify mine.
Comparing my photo above, to the picture in the link, you will see that I cut off the plastic from the two 'legs', that clip to the code 250 rail, flush to the angled strengthening plate modelled as part of the buffer.
I found that the buffer would then rest on top of the (LGB) code 332 rail. An added bonus was that the buffer beam was lowered to be that of the buffer of my LGB stock. Aradite secured these firmly in position.
So why use them instead of the offerings from LGB, PIKO et al?
Well in my case, I had them surplus, and as they have a very small 'footprint' of an inch (26 mm), they were ideal for my portable shunting layout which only has around 4 1/2 feet (1.5 m) of scenic area track.
The ones from other manufacturers take up 6 inch (150 mm) of space; not a problem in the garden where I have used both LGB 10319 and 10320 buffers, but where space is at a premium, well it's a godsend.
So to summarise;
PROS
Small footprint, and very cheap! Ideal for indoor layouts and dioramas.
CONS
Possibly a little too flimsy for outdoor use, unless a weather proof solvent adhesive is used to glue them together.
Need to be modified to fit to code 332 track.
Hope this helps Ricky and anyone else considering using this product....
http://www.gscalecentral.net/tm?m=107675&mpage=12
I mentioned the use of the Peco buffer stop outdoors on his railway, and Ricky commented that he was having problems fitting one to his own layout.
I have 3 off these fitted to Hardyard. I brought 2 originally for outdoor use, but I didn't find them robust enough, and the adhesive I'd used to make them failed. (Maybe I should have used a pipe solvent?)
http://www.kato-unitrack.co.uk/peco-sl-940-buffer-stop-8759-0.html
The link above shows one fitted to Peco G 45 code 250 track and rail. I guess it'd designed to clip onto this track without problems, but for those of us who use the more common code 332 track (LGB, PIKO, ART, USAT, etc), I found that I need to modify mine.
Comparing my photo above, to the picture in the link, you will see that I cut off the plastic from the two 'legs', that clip to the code 250 rail, flush to the angled strengthening plate modelled as part of the buffer.
I found that the buffer would then rest on top of the (LGB) code 332 rail. An added bonus was that the buffer beam was lowered to be that of the buffer of my LGB stock. Aradite secured these firmly in position.
So why use them instead of the offerings from LGB, PIKO et al?
Well in my case, I had them surplus, and as they have a very small 'footprint' of an inch (26 mm), they were ideal for my portable shunting layout which only has around 4 1/2 feet (1.5 m) of scenic area track.
The ones from other manufacturers take up 6 inch (150 mm) of space; not a problem in the garden where I have used both LGB 10319 and 10320 buffers, but where space is at a premium, well it's a godsend.
So to summarise;
PROS
Small footprint, and very cheap! Ideal for indoor layouts and dioramas.
CONS
Possibly a little too flimsy for outdoor use, unless a weather proof solvent adhesive is used to glue them together.
Need to be modified to fit to code 332 track.
Hope this helps Ricky and anyone else considering using this product....