Jump to content
 
  • entries
    32
  • comments
    245
  • views
    87,971

Buffalo rescue


buffalo

3,514 views

I'm sure everyone is familiar with the work of cat and dog rescue centres, donkey sanctuaries and so on. This entry is intended to be the start of the story of my attempt to rescue a bedraggled and mistreated Buffalo. In this case, an Alan Gibson pannier tank kit that I spotted recently on eBay and managed to obtain for rather less than half the cost of a new kit. Was it a bargain? Only time will tell. What follows is something of a catalogue of errors and, though I have no intention of poking fun at the original builder (I remember melting a fair amount of the first white metal kit I tackled), some of this may be useful for novice builders to see some of the pitfalls than can be easily avoided.

 

The kit was advertised as "...complete but may have been incorrectly assembled in some areas..." This turned out to be an understated, but reasonably accurate, description, though most of the spring castings were missing and there were no plunger pickups in the box. Interestingly, though, there is a plastic cased gearbox unit and a set of cast brass outside cranks, neither of which I had seen before. From these, I'm assuming that it is a fairly old kit dating back well into Alan's days, rather than Colin's current version.

 

blogentry-6746-0-81791300-1363444845.jpg

 

At first sight, it didn't look too bad and the tank and bunker had been assembled quite well though, strangely, not following the order suggested in the instructions. The top, sides and front of the tank had be glued together as a single unit whilst the lower part had been soldered to the running plate. This appeared to have been done using a relatively high melting point solder though, fortunately, the white metal had only been melted in a couple of places where it will be fairly easy to fill at a later date. Further evidence of failure to read the instructions came when I noticed that parts 31 and 32 were still on the etch and had not been soldered to the footplate first. These are rather important pieces serving to locate the smokebox front and the bunker, and provide strengthening at the points where nuts are attached for screwing the frames to the body.

 

blogentry-6746-0-51147200-1363444847.jpg

 

The underside was not so pretty and the soldering showed signs of inadequate heat (probably too small a bit on the iron) and a lack of flux. The outside frames were also far from straight. Here, I suspect they were a bit wiggly before fitting, rather than suffering distortion from poor soldering technique.

 

blogentry-6746-0-00426200-1363444849.jpg

 

Problems with the soldering of the outside frames and buffer beams became more apparent when I started to remove them, Only about one centimetre of the frames were firmly attached at the rear end. The rest, and the front buffer beam, came away with gentle finger pressure and only a little help from the iron. A clear sign of lack of flux and resultant dry joints as confirmed by the crystalline brittle fracture, and lack of flowing, of the solder seen in the next image.

 

 

 

Also visible in the above photo are several examples of overenthusiastic rivet punching. Mindful of the fact that not everyone owns a rivetting tool, Alan provided a pinpoint axle to serve as a primitive punch, and I think Colin still includes them. Being difficult to hold between the fingers, I suspect most beginners would be tempted to invoke the aid of a hammer. This is probably what has happened here as a fair number of the rivets have been pierced right through. An axle might be useful for this task, but only if first blunted and perhaps held firmly in a pin chuck. As they come, pinpoints are far too sharply pointed for this use.

 

The soldering on the brass cab was much better though again there were signs of insufficient heat where the cab was joined to the footplate. A conspicuous error here was failing to roll the roof so that it fitted properly before soldering. This resulted in some creasing of the half-etched piece and flattening of the curve where it was not supported.

 

blogentry-6746-0-65940000-1363444852_thumb.jpg

 

Also, note that the backhead has been glued in a little too high with the footplate 'timbers' bent up to meet it, and with none of the extra detailing attached. The regulator, brake lever and fire door levers are still on the etch, even though there is a quite clear drawing of how they fit in the instructions.

 

Once the lower part of the boiler and tanks had been removed, the full horror of the splashers came to light. These are probably one of the hardest parts for a beginner to get right on a kit like this. Like the cab roof, it is essential to form the parts to the correct shape before soldering.

 

blogentry-6746-0-46174200-1363444855.jpg

 

Finally, to the frames, and another example of how not to do it. You don't need an expensive jig, but some lengths of 1/8" silver steel and squared paper would go a long way towards avoiding this sort of misalignment.

 

blogentry-6746-0-08129700-1363444857.jpg

 

In a very short time, I had reduced it all to a kit of parts and started on cleaning up the runningplate:

 

blogentry-6746-0-88351000-1363444858.jpg

 

So where do we go from here? Much more cleaning, some straightening and re-shaping then, hopefully, a fairly straightforward reassembly. The holed rivets and the couple of bits of melted white metal can be hidden by filler and paint. The cab could certainly be recovered, but I'll probably use the other parts still on the etch to build an earlier cab as seen on the early pannier conversions. Apart from the bunker, the kit is well suited to this as it represents one of the earlier, smaller boilered forms with a flat top to the tanks. I haven't decided on a particular prototype yet, but will be aiming for something like the 1911 photo of No 1635 in Russell's fig 248.

 

Wish me luck!

 

Nick

  • Like 10

27 Comments


Recommended Comments



  • RMweb Gold

Oh good, these re-building projects are fascinating to follow. I suppose it would be another Buffalo :-)

 

Out of interest, Nick, what are the signs of insufficient heat that you mention?

Link to comment
Guest jonte

Posted

Best of British, Nick; although I've full faith in you producing something exquisite.

 

Will follow with interest.

 

Best wishes,

 

Jonte

Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

Nice introduction to this rebuild Nick.

 

I've a feeling this will be something special when you've finished.

 

Look forward to seeing the progression on this kit.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

Link to comment

Thanks Paul, Jonte and Mark.

Mikkel, unfortunately there's something flakey in the editor. I tried to edit the entry to annotate one of the photos and all went haywire. If I'd saved it, all the images would have been replaced by those little placeholder links. However, the new version does now appear out of place at the end. Unfortunately, I can't edit it to say that the photo is now at the end...

In the last photo, the bits outlined in yellow are the fractured dry joint. Dry joints have a greyer, dull surface unlike shiny well-wetted joints. The bit in green is very lumpy where solder has not flowed well, mostly because of insufficient heat. When there is sufficient heat, the solder melts fully, flows, and solidifies with a smooth surface. When the material is clean and there is sufficient flux, the solder will do this and flow across a wider area, leaving a very thin layer that reduces to near zero thickness at the edges.

Compare this with the closeup of the splashers. In this case there was sufficient heat as the solder surface is quite smooth, but inadequate cleanliness and/or flux because the solder isn't uniform across the whole area of the joint.

Nick

 

Edit, it looks like I've fallen foul of the "maximum 10 images then it goes haywire" bug that I remember others reporting. Damned amateur programmers!

  • Like 2
Link to comment

Best of luck with this one, Nick. I've got a more ancient (M&L version) unbuilt specimen, with everything in whitemetal (footplate, frames, cab). It's not pretty. No wonder I kept bending Martin Finney's ear for a decent etched Buffalo, but alas, in vain. He'd obviously thought about it, the Buffalo also being a favourite of his, but he knew the many pitfalls as well.

The central problem with the kit concerns the width. As can be seen below, I came to the conclusion that the whole thing was about 2.5mm too wide.

Here are the notes I made at the time in correspondence with someone else tackling one of these engines. In my view, the Buffalos are by far the most complicated of all GWR classes.
_______________


In the pannier tank era, there are roughly 4 appearance categories of Buffalo engines as they ended their days:

  • 12 locos with high-pitched boilers, large (1200 gallon) tanks, and where the boiler extends above the tops of the tanks; this type is the subject of the upper Templer drawing in Russell's book. Let's call these the 'high humped' locos. According to the RCTS records, not all of these had enclosed cabs, but I find this impossible to believe for 1925-30 construction. I feel these 12 locos do not really qualify to be called Buffalos, as the entire body was 7" wider than all the rest of the class, i.e. the particular type of boiler being fitted required new tanks, new cab, new bunker and new footplate - the whole of the upper part of the loco was therefore completely reconstituted! Quite why such a subclass came about is a mystery, unless Collett wanted a guinea pig for that new boiler type before launching into the 5700 pannier dynasty, and other inside-framed types like the 2721 and 1854 classes were surely better types to experiment on. I have never seen a picture of one of these high humped Buffalos.

 

  • 19 engines with high-pitched but otherwise conventional Buffalo boilers and tanks (approx 1000 gallons). I call these the 'high flat-tops'. Some had enclosed cabs whilst most did not - see fig 242 of Russell for the latter. Impossible to tell if figs 246b and 247 of Russell are this type in the absence of dates for those photos, but 1282 (with its 'busby' in fig 247) is known to have been stationed at the Didcot ordinance depot c.1907, but both pictures are obviously a lot later than this, and could be between 1916 and 1924, when that loco was in 'classic' Buffalo style (see next bullet point).

 

  • The bulk of the rest of the class, which look more or less like the lower Templer drawing (cabs and bunkers differ, primarily), and which I call the 'low flat-tops'. This is perhaps the 'classic' Buffalo look. See figs 236 and 257 (open cab) and fig 238 (enclosed cab) of Russell. Boiler pitch is 6'6 3/4", barrel length 11', and length over firebox casing is 5'4".

 

  • The 'extended' engines, used exclusively (?) for auto work. These are as per the classic Buffalo (see third bullet above), but have extended smokeboxes and tanks. See figs 237 and 241 of Russell. But we don't have a drawing! We know however that the extension is in respect of the smokebox and tanks, so boiler length is unchanged from 11'. Locos known to be in the extended category are 738 (nice front 3/4 view on page 225 of the South Devon book), 1167, 1234/5/52/65/9/71/84, 1567/70/1600. I would add 1168 to this list, if the caption on page 185 of the South Devon book is correct.

An immediate modelling snag in the generality of the Buffalo class concerns the overall length of any particular loco: the rear overhang varies according the lot number (see figs 239 and 245 etc of Russell). You need to translate this info for your chosen loco using the lot number info on page 94 of Russell. Having said that, some of the earlier, shorter, locos might have been lengthened up to the standard 6'9" rear overhang towards the ends of their lives, and this seems most probable if/when receiving new cabs and Collett bunkers. For the extended locos, only 738 comes into the 'shorter original' category, and this appears to have gained the full monty in respect of rear overhang judging from fig 241 of Russell.

Most details are easily deduced for the extended engines, others less so, and one particular aspect is difficult.

At one time, I thought there might be a questionmark over the body width of the extended locos, i.e. 7'5" (classic Buffalo) or 8'0" (as per the high humped locos): I am now strongly inclined to the former, so the end views of the lower Templer drawing are o.k. But I can't be absolutely certain, and Swindon's standardised bits and pieces policy meant that a loco could go into the shops one day and come out a week later, looking all in the same proportion, but actually 7" wider down the whole length of the loco. No drawings have surfaced for any of this critical width information.

All extended engines were autofitted, e.g. 1271 being fitted in 1915 (full details in RCTS for the other engines). All are assumed to have been fitted with screw reverse, probably at the time the new tanks/smokeboxes were put on, and also probably coinciding with the fitting of new cab plates and bunkers. All extended engines were fitted with ATC c.1930-31, but were the shoes at the front or the back? 1600's picture in Russell appears to have its ATC shoe at the back, and there was certainly more room at the back than at the front.

The dates of fitting the extended smokeboxes/tanks are not known, but they would have coincided with the other associated mods, i.e. enclosed cabs (but see below), rectangular window front cab plates, increased bunker size, and is therefore generally c.1924-27. Rear cab spectacle plates remained circular.

All extended engines have enclosed cabs, with two known exceptions: 1234 probably never got one, and in anycase is a bit of a freak, having an extended smokebox but unextended tanks; 1252, extended sometime between September 1920 (page 186, South Devon book) and July 1924 (page 223, South Devon book) has not got an enclosed cab by the latter date, but could have had one fitted after that.

All extended engines have rectangular windows in the cab front plates. I always thought the converse applied, but, stranger than strange, I now discover it does not. There is an interesting twist over 1570. Dr Ian C Allen's (a photographer not known for getting his loco numbers wrong) picture of 1570 at Yelverton (page 196, South Devon book) c. 1930 (known to be between 1928 and 1932, and I suspect towards the later end of that period) clearly shows an extended loco. His well known picture of the same loco at Tavistock in 1931 (see Great Western Album, R C Riley, Ian Allan) clearly shows the rectangular-windowed loco with an un-extended smokebox and tank.

Obviously the loco nipped into the shops in between photos, and came out looking distinctly different! Both these pictures appear in Great Western Autotrailers Part 1 by John Lewis (WSP).

Bunker shape: no problem for enclosed cab locos - as per lower Templer drawing.

Concerning the exact length of the smokebox/tank extension that you have to add on to the front of what's shown on the lower Templer drawing, we can only take an educated guess. Scaling off the 1600 picture in Russell, I would estimate that you would need to add on about 9" to 10", i.e. the extended smokebox length is something like figures 262 and 264 of Russell and the Templer drawing and official weight diagram for the 1661 class (page 97, Russell book).

Chimney length will be 3'3", and dome as per the lower Templer drawing (not the upper drawing, whose dome is far bigger).

The big uncertainty concerns the positioning of the chimney for the extended locos. I get the feeling from the extended Buffalo pictures that the chimney is in a 'forward' position, i.e. like the unextended lower Templer drawing, where the chimney is approx 1'3" back from the front of the smokebox. But we know that very few of the Buffalos (and none of the extended ones) were superheated. So why the extended smokebox - surely not to gain just a few more gallons in the tanks? Or were the extended ones superheated (which would befit their use on autotrain work) and nobody ever made a record? I don't know. Logically, we have to accept that the chimney is in a rear position, like figs 258/262/264, which gives the chimney at approx 2'3" back from the front of the smokebox. Modelling-wise, it's unfortunately not something that can be left until last thing, like on a conventional visible-top-of-the-smokebox-type of engine, where you can move the chimney about a bit until the whole loco looks like the pictures; for a flat-top pannier, the chimney aperture has to be made in the top of the tank wrapper (see, e.g. the pictures of 2112, 856 and 5402 in Guy Williams WSP book), so it has to be right at the pannier-making and fitting stage.
 

  • Like 4
Link to comment

Thanks very much for that, Miss P. Just when I thought I might get some modelling done, I've spent most of the day reading your notes and taking a closer look at some of the drawings and photos.

 

 

  • The bulk of the rest of the class, which look more or less like the lower Templer drawing (cabs and bunkers differ, primarily), and which I call the 'low flat-tops'. This is perhaps the 'classic' Buffalo look. See figs 236 and 257 (open cab) and fig 238 (enclosed cab) of Russell. Boiler pitch is 6'6 3/4", barrel length 11', and length over firebox casing is 5'4".

 

This is the type I'm aiming for (with 6'9" overhang), though both 1172 (fig 236) and 1644 (fig 257) were early twenties pannier conversions and I'll try for an early (1911ish) one. It seems that a fair number retained the cab style of the saddles, with or without bunker modifications

 

...At one time, I thought there might be a questionmark over the body width of the extended locos, i.e. 7'5" (classic Buffalo) or 8'0" (as per the high humped locos): I am now strongly inclined to the former, so the end views of the lower Templer drawing are o.k. But I can't be absolutely certain, and Swindon's standardised bits and pieces policy meant that a loco could go into the shops one day and come out a week later, looking all in the same proportion, but actually 7" wider down the whole length of the loco. No drawings have surfaced for any of this critical width information...

 

This is an interesting question. The tank/boiler castings in the kit are about the right length (75.2mm) but, if we can trust the lower Templer drawing they are, as you say, about 2.5mm too wide at 32.2mm. They are also a little too deep at 12.5mm. The height from the running plate to the boiler centre is spot on, but the height to the top of the tanks is about 1mm too short. The o/d of the smokebox door is also at least 1mm too large.

What puzzles me about the Templer drawing is that it is the only one that shows both the narrow running plate and narrow body. All the other drawings, including the saddle tanks, show the running plate width to be 8' 6" As there appears to be a significant overhang relative to the outside frames in all the photos, I'm not convinced about this 3 1/2" reduction on both sides. There does appear to be some variation, but not this much. At the moment, I'm still inclined towards the 8' body width.

 

...for a flat-top pannier, the chimney aperture has to be made in the top of the tank wrapper (see, e.g. the pictures of 2112, 856 and 5402 in Guy Williams WSP book), so it has to be right at the pannier-making and fitting stage.

 

That's something I need to look into. Why are photos from above so rare? I only have Guy William's Model Locomotive Construction, maybe I should get the others too.

Nick
 

Link to comment

I looked at this footplate/body width conundrum from a buffers point of view, whose pitch dimension is one of the few we can rely on. Taking a known 8'6" footplate (and 8' body), look at the amount of bufferbeam outboard of the buffer. Compare with a classic Buffalo, where the outboard distance is clearly a lot less. That classic Buffalo pannier footplate can't be 8'6", can it? I assume Templer got his 7'5" body width (and one assumes a say 7'11" or 8' footplate) elevation from somewhere. Having said that, a Buffalo saddle tank is also consistent with the pannier pic, so I find difficulty in corroborating a 8'6" footplate for a saddle version, but then I can't defend the notion that footplate widths would have been intentionally reduced on saddle to pannier conversion.

 

Somebody convince me I'm wrong. (I haven't got my Russell book handy at the moment, so can't compare other saddle pics, and other saddle classes.)

 

Btw, be wary of the differences in widths between some front and rear Buffalo bufferbeams.

Link to comment

From the photo evidence, I have to agree with you. Most photos show the front buffer beam extending no more than a couple of inches beyond the buffer base. IIRC the buffer base is about 1' 1 1/2" square and buffer centres are at 5' 8" (is that correct?), which would give little more than about 7' width for the beam. Again photos show the running plate extending some distance beyond this, but certainly not 8" or 9" on each side, more like 4", or 6" at most. Some, though not all, appear to have wider buffer beams at the back but photos showing the rear are rare. I've only seen two, one a broad gauge version that doesn't help, and the other was the one that hoboking posted in an earlier blog entry (I think you have a copy). That one shows a very narrow beam that ends flush with the buffer bases, but I think it also shows that the plate extends somewhat beyond the outer face of the cranks. From both the Maskelyne and Templer drawings in Russell, the distance over the crank faces appears to be around 7' 8" to 7' 10". That might suggest 8'0", but 8'6" is pushing it.

 

Most of the drawings in Russell tell a different story. Maskelyne's drawing of 1564 as a saddle tank in fig 233 actually says "8'6" footplate" and his cab and bunker are about 8'. He also shows a detailed cross-section of the tank with an overall width of 7'9".

 

The remaining diagrams are all panniers. The upper part of Templer's drawing in fig 234 (your large humped variety) has an 8'6" plate and cab/bunker/tank at about 8'1". The lower outline drawing has the plate width labelled as 7'11" and the cab/bunker/ measure at about 7'6".

 

Fig 240, said to be Diag B.23 (P class B4 boiler) has the plate dimensioned at 8'6". Cab/bunker/tank measure at 8'0". Fig 244, Diag B.24 (also P class B4) has the same dimension and although not to scale, looks the same (probably just a copy of the previous diagram. On the same page, Fig 246C is Diag B.47 of a 2721 class with B4 boiler. This also has the 8'6" plate width dimension, but also shows 8'0" for the body width.

 

Fig 258 is Diag A.29 for the 1661 class with B4 and panniers, 8'0" over the plate, 7'5" over the body.

 

Fig 266, not numbered, shows a 1701 class with 8'6" over the plate, 8'0" over the body.

 

Fig 272 is B.74 for the 2721 class, again 8'6" and 8'0" and Fig 274 is Diagram F for the saddle version and gives the same dimensions.

 

Fig 275 is another Templer drawing, this time a Wolverhampton 1016 class. There are no relevent dimensions, but the width appears to be about 8'0" with an 8'6" plate. Fig 276 is B17 for the same class in mid-twenties with B4. Again, no dimensions, but it measures the same, as do the converted Beyer 322 class in figs 294 and 295.

 

So, plenty of evidence for 8'0" bodies and 8'6" plates on large tanks but it then leaves the question if the Buffalo was narrower, why?

 

Nick

Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

Thanks Nick for the excellent reply and illustration.

 

And sorry about messing up the image display. I don't seem to have that problem. I wonder if this is related to the type of browser being used. Others are reporting Youtube embedding problems with IE, but there seem to be no problems with Chrome.

Link to comment

Hi Mikkel,

 

I tried the edit with both firefox and chrome. Both had the same results and I remember a couple of reports of strange things happening when you have ten or more images in a single entry, so I reckon it's the software.

 

Nick

Link to comment

Nick, yes, buffer centres at 5'8", and this would give say 7'3" or 7'4" over front buffer beams and say a further 4" overhang of the footplate each side would make it up to 7'11" or 8'. As you say, 8'6" is pushing it - I can't imagine Swindon allowing an unsupported 7" or 8" overhang.

 

Here's newly-panniered 1047 at Snow Hill in 1912 - look how the toolbox overhangs the footplate. This 1016 class is also alleged to have been widened in the mid-1920s madness, as per your diagram refs above.

 

One could speculate the Russell diagrams, at least those that don't belong to the 'larger' classes, e.g. 1701 and 2721, are a series of early experiments under Collett desperately trying to improve his ageing tank fleet before commonsense prevailed with the adoption of the 57xx design, but speculation doesn't really get us anywhere.

 

I don't know any of the answers, Nick. All I know is that I've never seen a pic of a wide Buffalo, and maybe they were always narrow. I can only hope someone out there might see this exchange and might have some better evidence.

Link to comment

Looking at the Buffalo saddle tank I built a few years ago, the running plate overhang relative to the outside frames measures at a little over 10", and the width over the frames is about 6'9". The overhang certainly looks too wide from this angle.

 

blogentry-6746-12552812713155.jpg

 

The frame measurement is pretty close to the Maskelyne and upper Templer drawings. The Swindon drawings in Russell appear to be a bit narrower, maybe 6'7". The lower Templer with narrower 7'11" plate doesn't show the frames.

 

Following on from my earlier comment that the overhang in some photos is wider than the outside of the cranks, it is also fairly clear that it doesn't extend as far as the rods and the end of the crankpins. Now, both Maskelyne and Templer show the width over the crankpins to be 8'5 1/4".

 

Recalling that fifty Buffalos were convertible, and assuming that conversion did not involve changing the frame spacing, I would expect the broad gauge frame spacing to be about 6'6" or 6'7" (is that correct?). Looking at the photos of bg Buffalos on the Swindon dump (e.g. Russell fig 54), the overhang outside of the cabs looks wider than on sg photos, so the 8'6" overall width starts to become plausible again. I wonder if that measurement referred to their width in bg form, and was erroneously copied through several generations of drawings?

 

Nick

Link to comment

I wonder if that measurement referred to their width in bg form, and was erroneously copied through several generations of drawings.

 

That's an interesting possibility, Nick, but I'm inclined not to go along with the idea, since only 50 were convertibles, and I also suspect that BG to sg conversion wasn't as simple as is often portrayed, and would have involved a decent GA drawing to iron out all the knotty frame/splasher/spring etc problems.

 

On the standard 'Churchward' outside-framed 4-4-0s, footplates were 8'3" wide, distance over cranks was approx 7'10" and over the outside of the crankpin was 8'9.5". Distance over lower steps was 8'0.5".

 

If, for the Buffalo, Maskelyne and Templer are saying 8'5 1/4" over pins, then that might mean the overcrank dimension could be down to say 7'6", but I wouldn't take issue with your estimate of 7'8" to 7'10", because previous generation rods were probably a bit thinner than the later Churchward ones. (And 7'10" might have been a standard dimension going back to Armstrong days?) I'm not sure what that would then mean for the dimension over frames - somewhere close to your 6'7" I guess, assuming crank thicknesses of 6" tapering to 4.5" at the pin end.

 

From pictures, I would agree with you the Buffalo footplate width was certainly a bit wider than the overcrank dimension but does not encroach much over the rods themselves. It certainly doesn't encroach as far as the stated 8'5 1/4" Maskelyne/Templer overpin dimension. Have a look at this one. (The hoboking pic is also very useful for this judgement.)

 

Concerning the chimney sitting on the smokebox, I'm now not so sure there would have been a aperture, because the top of the classic Buffalo smokebox is just above the top of the tank level. It's subtle though, and the top might look like a 1854 class.

 

The Great Western in South Devon book (WSP) is a bit tasty for Buffalo pics, btw.

Link to comment

I must keep my eyes open for more information on convertibles. Holcroft says little about the actual conversion process other than it involving longer axles and wheels outside the frames for the broad gauge. The impression is that it was straightforward. That thirty-five of them were built, and fifteen converted, for short term use on the broad gauge suggests to me that the design was easily adapted. Yes, it involved extra metalwork for the different splashers, etc. but I don't think there were any significant structural changes. That after all being the point of convertibles

 

Just when I was starting to get comfortable with a 'narrow' Buffalo, you find the photo of one behind the 43XX. If the Swindon drawings in Russell are to be believed, a 43XX measures 8'8" across the running plate, and that tender could be 8'6". The Buffalo doesn't really look much narrower to me.

 

I'm not convinced about the smokebox or firebox appearing above the tanks, at least on the early conversions. The smugmug photo of 963 at Pontypool does show the smokebox rising just above the tank, but that was a late fitted B4 (1927), so probably one of the larger boilers. It doesn't appear to do this on the Snow Hill photo of 1047 which must be the earlier, smaller, boiler.

 

Much as I like, and have long been tempted by, the Finney 1854, both the Swindon drawings in Russell do show the smoke and fireboxes being quite prominent, in marked contrast to the Buffalo drawings. Indeed, one drawing shows a hump on an 1854 when panniers were fitted to the older round top boilers. Russell's caption for this is wrong, though. He says it is A.19, but RCTS says that is for an S2 whereas the boiler in the Russell drawing is an S4, so it's probably A.25.

 

Thanks for the pointer to the South Devon book, I've managed to track down a good used copy.

 

Of course, if you can put up with excessive overhang, there's always this ;-(

 

Nick

Link to comment

Point taken about smokeboxes appearing or not appearing above the tanks - there do seem to be variations according to era, and I had momentarily forgotten you were aiming for 1912-ish. (For the 1016, compare a very late example.)

 

I think it is very difficult to draw body-width conclusions from the angle of the pic of the the Buffalo behind the 43xx tender, and I referenced it primarily for the width relationship between the Buffalo's rods and its footplate. (I may be sent a better version of that pic soon, btw.) Here's another example, unfortunately extremely murky, with the cab appearing to be narrower than its adjacent 8' coach body.

 

We've probably bored everyone else to death by now!

Link to comment

I tried drawing some lines on the Buffalo and 43XX photo. The Buffalo is narrower but I couldn't reach any firm conclusion about how much. The Honeybourne photo is interesting, but the loco appears to be leaning to our right more than the coach. The bottom of the cab looks closer to the coach width than the top but, even so, I think it is probably narrower than the coach. Are you sure it is an 8' wide coach? Might it not be 8'6"? The photo you found earlier of 1231 at Leamington also suggests to me that the cab is narrower than the coach behind.

 

Even if not bored to death, I don't hold much hope of further enlightenment at only four visitors per day...

 

Nick

Link to comment

All single-arc roof stock was 8' wide as far as I know. On the Leamington picture, the majority of clerestory non-corridor bogie stock was 8' wide, particularly ones with 6'4" bogies, as that one seems to be.

Link to comment

Interesting point about coach widths, I'd never realised that all single arc stock was the same width...

 

Nick

Link to comment

The South Devon book arrived today, an excellent collection of photos, many of which I'd not seen before. As far as Buffalo widths are concerned, the photos on pages 196 and 225 are particularly useful. If we can assume there was nothing unusual about the widths of the extended smokebox, square windowed, auto-fitted variety, that is. In these near frontal views the first thing to notice is how narrow they look compared to the auto trailers. Not really unexpected as trailers were mostly 9' wide.

 

On both photos it is possible to measure the buffer pitch using pairs of fixing bolts on the buffer bases. Using this measurement and scaling appropriately, I reckon the tanks are at most 7'3" wide and running plate about 7'9". Both of which seem rather narrow...

 

 

Nick

Link to comment

Yes, I'm convinced. Measurements from a few more photos of the panniers seem to confirm this. I haven't managed to find a decent enough near-frontal view of a saddle tank, though I suspect Maskelyne's 7'9" on his tank drawing is an upper limit.

 

Now, that just leaves all the other large tanks with 8'0"/8'6" on their diagrams...

 

Nick

Link to comment

The point of no return has been passed. Just started trimming the running plate down to 31mm. Simple enough with a razor saw, though narrowing the tank will be more entertaining...

 

Nick

Link to comment

Brave person! Personally, I would have been happy to settle for Templer's 7'5" body width, but I'm not going to quibble over 0.5mm. Looking forward to see the various 'cut and shuts'.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...